West Coast-Based Firms Dominate List of Startups' Go-To Counsel: Report
Fenwick, Wilson Sonsini, Gunderson, Orrick, Perkins Coie and Goodwin Procter are leaders in getting work from startups, according to a survey by Kruze Consulting.
February 22, 2019 at 02:25 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
Startups can be big business for the law firms that serve them. The average startup company spends about $77,000 per year on legal costs, a recent report by Kruze Consulting found. The report analyzed over $18 million worth of legal spend by over 140 U.S. startups the agency works with, and found the following firms land at the top of the list in terms of revenue from startup clients. Healy Jones, vice president of marketing at Kruze Consulting, said that the data was provided anonymously by startups in Seed, Series A and Series B funding stages. These startups analyzed their legal spend on a range of services, which varied by company depending on their industry, IP needs, funding round and company-specific HR issues. On average, the startups said they spend $77,150 on legal fees per year, though that may be skewed by top spenders—median legal spend per startup was $38,990. "It proves why these law firms want to take the startup market, it is a sizable check," Jones said. When dividing them up by industries, the report found that health care companies, as well as those in the hardware space, are known for spending a significant amount on legal costs. It should be noted, however, that the analysis excluded most companies' litigation costs. The report also said many startups work with more than just one legal service provider, choosing firms with expertise in areas like immigration, employment law, intellectual property, or other disciplines as needed. The top five firms based on the number of their clients is a very similar list to the top firms by revenue share, but with Goodwin Procter making an appearance instead of Perkins Coie.
Rank | Firm | Client Market Share |
1 | Fenwick & West | 15 % |
2 | Gunderson Dettmer Stough Villeneuve Franklin & Hachigian | 15 % |
3 | Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe | 13 % |
4 | Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati | 11 % |
5 | Goodwin Procter | 11 % |
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFrom 'Confusing Labyrinth' to Speeding 'Roller Coaster': Uncertainty Reigns in Title IX as Litigators Await Second Trump Admin
6 minute readNew Class Action Points to Fears Over Privacy, Abortions and Fertility
Trending Stories
- 1The Impact of Erlinger on Predicate Felony Sentencing Statutes
- 2To Ease Partner Pay Tensions, Some Law Firms Are Seeking 'Middle Ground' in Transparency
- 3How Legal Aid and Tech Collaboration Can Bridge the Justice Gap
- 4The Rise of AI-Generated Deepfakes: A New Cybersecurity Threat for Law Firms
- 5Litigation Leaders: Labaton’s Eric Belfi on Running Case Investigation, Analysis and Evaluation In-House
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250