The Law Firm Disrupted: The Golden Years Have Not Returned
These two things can be true at once: Law firms can be performing very well. And yet the industry may never return to its heyday.
March 07, 2019 at 09:00 PM
4 minute read
In this week's Law Firm Disrupted, we hold two truths in our mind at once: Big Law is performing well. But the heady days of growth have not returned.
I'm Roy Strom, the author of this weekly newsletter on the changing business of Big Law, and I can be reached here or you can sign up to receive this email here.
A Reminder: The Golden Years Have Not Returned
Last year Latham & Watkins grew its revenue by more than 10 percent to about $3.4 billion. This was, without a doubt, a great result for the global firm. Since 2009, it has only accomplished higher single-year revenue growth rates twice: from 2013 to 2014 and 2010 to 2011.
With Citibank reporting that large law firms last year experienced the greatest top-line growth since the Great Recession, there is plenty of reason to be optimistic about the current state of the legal services market. No reason to turn the lights on at this dance.
But I have to do it. I have to put out what is now something of an annual reminder: The golden era for law firms has not returned.
If the Am Law 100 in 2018 ends up growing revenue by 6.4 percent—the average Citi reported for all firms in its survey—the nation's 100 largest firms will have grown revenue from 2009 to 2018 by 50 percent. Nothing to scoff at! But it doesn't stack up to what happened in the preceding nine-year period: 108 percent revenue growth.
The story is the same even at Latham, one of the Golden Children of today's legal market.
Consider: In the nine years since 2009, Latham's revenue has risen 86 percent, according to ALM data. Very impressive! What about from 2000 to 2009? 183 percent revenue growth. Dreamy.
While Latham can rightfully celebrate its year-over-year 10.5 percent revenue growth in 2018, that would have been its third lowest single-year revenue growth rate from 2000 to 2009. And that's only because, you know, there was a pretty bad recession in 2008 and 2009 (both years that saw negative revenue growth). More common in that decade were years like 2006 to 2007, when Latham's revenue rose 24 percent.
If Latham saw that same kind of revenue growth next year—let's just say the Golden Years return (they will not)—the firm's revenue would blow past the $4 billion mark in 2019. Just two years after it broke the $3 billion barrier.
It is some level of absurd that law firms experienced the kind of growth they did in the pre-recession 2000s. To be sure, part of the slowdown is likely to do with the law of large numbers. Law firms are significantly bigger than they used to be, and it's hard to keep up that kind of growth.
But I also think this background is helpful when thinking about the slow pace of legal market change. If your argument is that law firms need dramatic change to respond to a stagnant market, you might want to temper your expectations. Because two things can be true at once: Law firms can be performing very well. Even if they haven't returned to the glory days.
Roy's Reading Corner
On Law Firm Legal Tech Investments: The Artificial Lawyer reports that an Am Law 200 firm was part of the investor group that put $4.8 million into a legal tech contracts platform, LinkSquares. Strikes me as a logical response for law firms to invest in companies that are eating into the legal services market. Diversifying your investments is a pretty basic strategy. And in most industries, incumbent players buy up their threats.
On Lateral Hires: My colleague at The American Lawyer, Dan Packel, writes this week about lateral partner hires—and why they fail. The story says that $17 billion worth of legal work changed firms thanks to lateral hires from 2014 to 2017. But a lot of that gets wasted along the way.
On Legal Operations: Barnes & Thornburg is launching a “legal operations department.” The firm has long had an innovation brand, known as BT ValueWorks, but they say that aligning their language with corporate legal departments will help clients understand what that means. The story includes an anecdote of a partner who brought the firm's legal ops pros into a pitch meeting. The experience changed her practice.
That's it for this week! Thanks for reading, and please reach out here: [email protected]. You can also sign up for this newsletter/column here.
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
© 2025 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 AllThe Law Firm Disrupted: Big Law Profits Vs. Political Values
The Law Firm Disrupted: Quality Partner Training—The Exception or the Rule?
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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