Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP vs. Paul Hastings 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. 1986
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP is a 1,000-plus-attorney firm, Vault #14 / AmLaw #20. Jurisdiction-specific Chambers rankings include Band 1 in Antitrust: Mainly Plaintiff, Antitrust: Plaintiff, and Bankruptcy Litigation. Operates from 33 offices worldwide.
Est. 1951
Paul Hastings LLP is a 1,000-plus-attorney firm, Vault #21 / AmLaw #22. Jurisdiction-specific Chambers rankings include Band 1 in Banking & Finance, Bankruptcy/Restructuring, and Capital Markets: High-Yield Debt. Operates from 24 offices worldwide.
- Vault rank
- #14
- AmLaw rank
- #20
- Reported Chambers Band 1 records
- 8 records
- Vault rank
- #21
- AmLaw rank
- #22
- Reported Chambers Band 1 records
- 21 records
- First-year comp
- $235,000+
- Profits per partner
- $9.54M
- Firm revenue
- $2.77B
- Revenue per lawyer
- $2.45M
- First-year comp
- $225,000+
- Profits per partner
- $8.33M
- Firm revenue
- $2.68B
- Revenue per lawyer
- $2.11M
- Billable target
- -
- Partnership track
- 7 years
- US associates per partner
- -
- Firm size (rounded to 50)
- ~1,150
- Offices
- 33
- Billable target
- 2,000
- Partnership track
- -
- US associates per partner
- 2.4:1
- Firm size (rounded to 50)
- ~1,500
- Offices
- 24
- Offer rate
- -
- Class size
- -
- How associates get work
- -
- Specific practice area
- No
- Offer rate
- -
- Class size
- 131 (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. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
- Cravath, Swaine & Moore vs. Paul Hastings
- Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz vs. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
- Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz vs. Paul Hastings
- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom vs. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom vs. Paul Hastings
- Latham & Watkins vs. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
- Latham & Watkins vs. Paul Hastings
- Sullivan & Cromwell vs. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
- Sullivan & Cromwell vs. Paul Hastings
- Kirkland & Ellis vs. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
- Kirkland & Ellis vs. Paul Hastings
Firm data comes from each firm’s own publications, Chambers USA and Vault; see Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan and Paul Hastings for sources and dates.