A Demand Turnaround for Law Firms? Not for Everyone
In the legal market, it remains true that bigger is better. A new report says Am Law 100 firms significantly outperformed their smaller peers in the first three months of 2018.
May 14, 2018 at 06:45 AM
4 minute read
Bigger is better is a tired phrase, but it remains a truism in today's legal market.
Overall, demand for law firm hours in the first quarter of 2018 fell by 0.5 percent, the most since 2013, according to data from Thomson Reuters Corp. But the nation's 100 largest firms saw demand rise, by 0.4 percent, marking the fourth time in the last five quarters that the Am Law 100 was the lone segment of the market to see rising demand.
Separate data released Monday by Citi Private Bank's Law Firm Group also found that demand grew only for the top segment of the law firm market.
While the Thomson Reuters data show a relatively strong performance among large firms, the drop in demand was nevertheless somewhat of a surprise as it came directly on the heels of one of the strongest quarters for law firm financials since the credit crisis. The first quarter is also historically one of the stronger periods of growth for law firms.
The weak demand performance helped pull down a composite score that Thomson Reuters tracks of law firm health by eight points, to settle at 52. Its rise to 60 in the fourth quarter of 2017 represented a high-water mark that had not been reached since 2011. That metric, called the Peer Monitor Index, tracks relative changes of demand, productivity, rates, direct expenses and overhead expenses.
To be sure, the largest firms are not experiencing the same melancholy market as midsize firms. Demand at Am Law Second Hundred firms declined 0.3 percent and midsize firms saw demand down 1.2 percent, according to the Peer Monitor data. In the first quarter, rates grew 3.3 percent across the cohort of firms tracked by Thomson Reuters, which represented stronger growth than the first quarter for the past two years.
That growth, too, was primarily fueled by the country's largest firms. Rates at Am Law 1 to 50 firms jumped 6.3 percent, which the survey called “remarkable.” Across the Am Law 100, rates were up 4.5 percent from the prior-year period.
“The Am Law 100 continues to separate itself from the pack,” said Michael Abbott, vice president for client management and thought leadership at Thomson Reuters. “And you are seeing some struggles in the Second Hundred, and particularly the second half of the Second Hundred and midsize firms, which is having an impact on the overall peer monitor numbers.”
➤➤ Want more reporting on the evolving legal industry? Sign up here for The Law Firm Disrupted, offering an in-depth, levelheaded discussion of trends rocking the legal sector.
The Am Law 50 may have felt comfortable pushing rate increases in the first quarter after seeing a spike in demand and rates in the fourth quarter of last year, said Justin Hines, a senior analyst at Thomson Reuters. Those firms working on major matters still have the ability to set their prices, even as many analysts of the legal market describe a buyer's market for commoditized work.
“There is the potential that the fourth quarter gave them confidence to push that rate. It's certainly not something we've seen,” Hines said of rate growth as high as 6.3 percent. “If that continues to be the trend, it will be an interesting story throughout 2018.”
As rates increase, realization will be a figure to watch. In the first quarter, it remained fairly steady at 88.1 percent. But realization in this quarter does not necessarily correlate to the high billing rate growth seen over the same timeframe. If that number falls in the second period, it could represent pushback by clients.
“If we continue to see that aggressive rate growth, hopefully realization will keep pace, but we may see that start to [drop off] in the second or third quarter as the bills actually get paid,” said William Josten, senior legal industry analyst at the Thomson Reuters Legal Executive Institute.
One area in which Am Law 100 firms underperformed other segments was demand for litigation services. Overall, litigation hours dropped 0.9 percent. Second Hundred firms saw demand rise 1.3 percent, however, as their larger competitors saw a decline of 1.7 percent. It was the second straight quarter where litigation demand for the Am Law 100 has lagged behind that of its mostly smaller competitors.
Read More:
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 AllSquire Patton Boggs Associate Among Those Killed in String of Methanol Poisonings
1 minute readMore Big Law Firms Rush to Match Associate Bonuses, While Some Offer Potential for Even More
Holland & Knight, Akin, Crowell, Barnes and Day Pitney Add to DC Practices
3 minute read'There Is No Time to Waste': Matt Gaetz Withdraws From AG Nomination
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1These 2 Lawyers Just Became Florida Judges
- 2'Disease-Causing Bacteria': Colgate and Tom’s of Maine Face Toothpaste Class Action
- 3Trump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
- 4Armstrong Teasdale's London Creditors Face Big Losses
- 5Texas Court Invalidates SEC’s Dealer Rule, Siding with Crypto Advocates
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