Could 2019 Am Law 100 Profit Margin Set A New Record?
The 1987 Am Law 100 profit margin has not been exceeded for 32 years. This year 2019's profit margin could surpass that level and set a new record.
April 17, 2019 at 02:26 PM
5 minute read
In the previous article of this series, we expressed profit margin (defined as operating income divided by revenue) in terms of revenue per lawyer (RPL) and cost per lawyer (CPL). We noted that 2018 profit margin at 40.03% was at the highest level in 30 years; and had been climbing steadily upwards from 2009. We examine here whether this upward trend can continue into next year? In other words, could Am Law 100 profit margin increase further from 2018 to 2019? And can 2019 exceed the record margin of 40.14% set in the very first year of the Am Law 100 publication in 1987?
Projecting 2019 Profit Margins
To estimate the 2019 profit margin, we need three data points: (1) the 2018 profit margin; (2) 2018 to 2019 annual percentage increase in RPL; and (3) 2018 to 2019 annual percentage increase in CPL. The first data point is readily available, but we need to be creative in order to find the latter two. Fortunately, we can look to numerical surveys of law firms conducted by two leading banks which captures such data directly. For the first nine months of calendar 2018 against a similar nine month period in calendar 2017, the two surveys lead us to an average annual RPL growth rate of 4.65% and an average annual CPL growth rate of 4.30% (Log Into Legal Compass To View the Am Law 100).
Studying this further, we can make two critical observations. First, we see RPL growth rate from 2018 to 2019 of 4.65% is higher than the corresponding RPL growth rate from 2017 to 2018 of 3.07%. Similarly, CPL growth rate from 2018 to 2019 of 4.30% is higher than the corresponding CPL growth rate from 2017 to 2018 of 2.73%. Why has growth rate in both parameters increased recently? An increase in demand from 2018 to 2019, coupled with high standard rate increases are driving revenues; while increased headcount, additional compensation expenses and investments in marketing and technology are pushing up costs. Both revenues and costs are being tempered by increases in headcount, thus leading to relatively lower growth rates in the per lawyer metrics, RPL and CPL. Second, we see RPL growth rate % is 0.35% higher than the CPL growth rate %. This is a positive rate differential and should lead to an anticipated increase in profit margin from 2018 to 2019.
We can now project 2019 profit margin using our earlier formula. We use the 2018 Am Law 100 average RPL of $936,666, the 2018 Am Law 100 average CPL of $561,748; and the above growth rates, assuming that the annual calendar year levels are the same as the 9-month survey results:
Thus, 2019 profit margin is projected to be 40.23%, which would be 0.20% higher than the 2018 profit margin of 40.03%. Indeed, 2019 projections turn out be 0.09% higher than the record level of 40.14% set in 1987. While 0.09% is a small figure, it is still significant. Indeed, 2019 could represent a new profit margin record in the 33 year history of the Am Law 100 survey.
Comparing Projections to Am Law Early Results
Can we numerically test our 2019 projection? We are fortunate to have The American Lawyer's early reporting on 2019 financial performance for some law firms. As of March 13, 2019, we have data on 42 firms in the 2018 Am Law 100; whose combined 2018 revenues and operating income total to almost 45% of the corresponding numbers for 2018 (see $41.1/$91.4 in Table 1). Owing to this significant percentage, we can assume this 42 firm sample is representative of final 2019 Am Law 100 results.
For these 42 firms, we see annual growth in RPL of 5.4% exceeds the 4.65% indicated by bank surveys; and similarly, the growth in CPL of 5.0% exceeds the 4.30% indicated by bank surveys. Further, the differential between growth in RPL and CPL is 0.40%, which is very much like the 0.35% differential obtained from bank surveys. Since RPL growth rate exceed CPL growth rate, we would anticipate profit margin to increase from 2018 to 2019.
Indeed, for these 42 firms, 2019 profit margin of 39.12% is higher than the 2018 profit margin of 38.87% by 0.25%. Our mathematically calculated projection was an increase of 0.20%, a remarkably close, if not somewhat conservative result. We are pleased to note good validation from actual firm data for our projection.
Summary
We had projected profit margins would increase from 40.03% in 2018 by 0.20% to 40.23% in 2019 to set a new Am Law record. The early results for 42 firms, comprising nearly half of the 2018 Am Law 100 proves our projected increase of 0.20% is close to the sample result of 0.25%. However, it is important to note that this analysis is a projection of future results based on historically available but partial information. The real world is replete with one-off events, noisy data, compositional changes and other non-forecastable changes. Thus, 2019 Am Law 100 actual results may well be different from these mathematical derivations.
Madhav Srinivasan is the Chief Financial Officer at Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, leading the global finance and pricing competencies. Madhav is an ALM Intelligence Fellow and also an adjunct faculty at Columbia Law School in New York and University of Texas at Austin School of Law.
More information on the ALM Intelligence Fellows Program can be found 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
© 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 AllClifford Chance Under Fire for Human Rights Assessment of Saudi Arabia World Cup Bid
5 minute readTrump Win Ignites Global Legal Market: Lawyers Prepare for High Demand & Uncertainty
Big Law Practice Leaders 'Bullish' That Second Trump Presidency Will Be Good for Business
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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