Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP vs. Goodwin Procter LLP
Side-by-side on the metrics that actually drive the student's call. Sources: Vault 2027, AmLaw 200 FY2025, and reported Chambers records from the years shown.
Swipe sideways to see every firm, or focus the comparison and use the arrow keys.
Est. 1946 · New York and Washington
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP is a 1,000-plus-attorney firm, Vault #16 / AmLaw #32, founded in New York and Washington, DC. Jurisdiction-specific Chambers rankings include Band 1 in Antitrust, Antitrust: Cartel, and Capital Markets: Investment Grade Debt: Issuer Counsel.
Est. 1912 · Boston
Goodwin Procter LLP is a 1,000-plus-attorney firm, AmLaw #21, founded in Boston, Massachusetts. Jurisdiction-specific Chambers rankings include Band 1 in Banking & Finance: Corporate & Regulatory, Capital Markets, and Corporate/M&A. Operates from 10 offices worldwide.
- Vault rank
- #16
- AmLaw rank
- #32
- Reported Chambers Band 1 records
- 13 records
- Vault rank
- #31
- AmLaw rank
- #21
- Reported Chambers Band 1 records
- 18 records
- First-year comp
- $225,000+
- Profits per partner
- $6.05M
- Firm revenue
- $1.95B
- Revenue per lawyer
- $1.76M
- First-year comp
- $255,000+
- Profits per partner
- $4.24M
- Firm revenue
- $2.72B
- Revenue per lawyer
- $1.63M
- Billable target
- -
- Partnership track
- 8 years
- US associates per partner
- 2.3:1
- Firm size (rounded to 50)
- ~1,100
- Offices
- 14
- Billable target
- 1,950
- Partnership track
- -
- US associates per partner
- -
- Firm size (rounded to 50)
- ~1,650
- Offices
- 10
- Offer rate
- -
- Class size
- -
- How associates get work
- Centralized staffing
- Specific practice area
- No
- Offer rate
- 100%
- Class size
- 67 (year not confirmed)
- How associates get work
- Centralized staffing
- Specific practice area
- Case by Case
Shared results are listed once. Green marks only a lower reported Chambers band for the same exact practice, market and year. Records with a missing year or market are not compared. Historical records are retained; individual ranking verification status is not available.
Shared rankings
Rank differences
Firm-only and additional rankings remain available on each firm profile so missing coverage is not mistaken for a head-to-head loss.
Data sources: Vault 2027, AmLaw 200 FY2025, and reported Chambers records from the years shown. Chambers record counts can span years and reporting coverage varies; missing years or markets are not compared. Current Chambers bands were checked against each firm’s Chambers profile on Sep 26, 2026; where Chambers splits a table, every Elite firm ranks above every Highly Regarded firm. Missing values shown as “-”.
More head-to-head comparisons
- Cravath, Swaine & Moore vs. Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
- Cravath, Swaine & Moore vs. Goodwin Procter
- Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz vs. Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
- Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz vs. Goodwin Procter
- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom vs. Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom vs. Goodwin Procter
- Latham & Watkins vs. Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
- Latham & Watkins vs. Goodwin Procter
- Sullivan & Cromwell vs. Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
- Sullivan & Cromwell vs. Goodwin Procter
- Kirkland & Ellis vs. Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
- Kirkland & Ellis vs. Goodwin Procter
Firm data comes from each firm’s own publications, Chambers USA and Vault; see Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton and Goodwin Procter for sources and dates.