Inflation May Be Beating Billing Rates Increases: The Morning Minute
Want to get this daily news briefing by email? Here's the sign-up. WHAT WE'RE WATCHING OVERINFLATED - Apparently, the only thing rising faster…
October 17, 2022 at 06:00 AM
5 minute read
Want to get this daily news briefing by email? Here's the sign-up.
|
WHAT WE'RE WATCHING
OVERINFLATED - Apparently, the only thing rising faster than law firm prices is the price of everything else. As Law.com's Andrew Maloney reports, law firm billing rates have increased across all law positions in 2022, but not necessarily enough to keep pace with inflation. That's according to new reports released this week that point to some more challenges for law firm profits. The average going rate for partners in the U.S. this year is about $749 per hour, an increase from about $738 in 2021 (+1.5%), according to a report from Wolters Kluwer ELM Solutions. Last year, the average going rate for partners rose from about $705 in 2020 (+4.7%). The mean going rate for associates in 2022 is about $546, an increase from $541 the previous year (+0.9%). Last year, the number increased from $503 (+7.6%). And the average going rate for paralegals this year is about $247, an increase from $244 the previous year. The mean going rate last year for paralegals increased from $232 in 2020 (+5.2%). But inflation is still proving to be a challenge for law firm billing rates. Although the consumer price index has increased about 14% since the end of 2019, average law firm rates have increased by about 11% during that time span, according to a separate report from the legal tech company Clio.
TOUGH TALKS - As the IPO window remains shut, tech and life sciences companies and the law firms that serve them are going back to the boardroom—sometimes for difficult discussions, Law.com's Jessie Yount reports. Late-stage private companies are increasingly employing common cost-cutting measures and contemplating down-round financings, as well as alternatives to traditional equity financings, according to a new report from Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. "Capital markets has been robust for the past several years. It occurred to us that some entrepreneurs and investment professionals haven't been through a down cycle," according to Wilson Sonsini corporate partner and report co-author Michael Nordtvedt. "We certainly are [in a down cycle] for IPOs and that is trickling down to the private capital markets, so we designed a tool for folks to navigate that market environment." While companies typically aim to avoid down-rounds because of public perception, Nordtvedt cautioned that alternative financings often include more complex governance and equity terms that can cause problems down the road. He recommended that companies "not get too caught up on valuation" but acknowledged that deals require more nuanced conversations with clients. Jon Avina, a corporate partner at Cooley, agreed. Down-round and more complex financing structures "are transactions that require difficult conversations with clients and investors, especially because people aren't necessarily thrilled to be paying more advisory fees for a deal that's already going to be marked down in terms of valuation," Avina said.
ON THE RADAR - Gaming company International Game Technology and its top officers were hit with a securities class action on Friday in New Jersey District Court. The suit, brought by Pomerantz LLP, accuses the defendants of misleading investors about the company's compliance with applicable gaming and lottery laws. The suit comes on the heels of an August 29 press release announcing that the company had agreed to pay nearly half a billion dollars to settle claims relating to the operation of the online gambling platform DoubleDown Casino. Counsel have not yet appeared for the defendants. The case is 1:22-cv-06094, Dundas v. International Game Technology PLC et al. Stay up on the latest deals and litigation with the new Law.com Radar.
|
EDITOR'S PICKS
2022-23 Law School Admission Cycle Starts Out With a Whisper By Christine Charnosky |
Judge Uses Kennedy Assassination to Show How Good Lawyers Try Cases By Alaina Lancaster and Zack Needles |
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 AllSo You Want to Be a Tech Lawyer? Consider Product Counseling
Federal Judge Weighs In on School's Discipline for 'Explicitly Copying AI-Generated Text' on Project
Trump and Latin America: Lawyers Brace for US's Hardline Approach to Region
BCLP Exploring Merger Prospects as Profitability Lags, Partnership Shrinks
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
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