Strategic Growth Propels Spencer Fane Into Big Law's Big Leagues
The strategy launched by managing partner Patrick Whalen six years ago has the Kansas City-based firm's revenue hitting $111 million in 2018.
April 19, 2019 at 04:50 PM
4 minute read
Kansas City, Missouri-based Spencer Fane has boosted its top line and bottom line by double digits over the last five years, positioning the firm to crack the Am Law 200 with $111.68 million in 2018 revenue.
(The bottom-ranked Am Law 200 firm in the American Lawyer's most recent rankings took in $94 million. The latest rankings of the Am Law Second Hundred, based on 2018 revenues, will be published later this spring.)
Managing partner Patrick Whalen, a veteran intellectual property litigator, is the architect of the firm's growth strategy, which overlaps with his arrival in the leadership seat six years ago.
Whalen said he's sought to navigate a path between the two extremes of embracing growth for growth's sake and the equally risky approach of resisting all expansion opportunities out of fear of the associated challenges and growing pains.
“We didn't want to be handcuffed,” he said.
After closing 2018 with 243 attorneys in 15 offices in eight states, including a new presence in the Dallas suburb of Plano, the firm opened 2019 by entering the Upper Midwest and Florida for the first time, with new offices in Minneapolis and Tampa.
Whalen is trained as an economist, and the firm has a suitably methodical approach to vetting expansion opportunities. In recent years, the list of new markets for the firm also includes Dallas, Denver, Las Vegas, Oklahoma City, Phoenix and St. Louis.
One parameter is whether a potential new market is aligned with the firm's existing client base and industry strengths, which, according to Whalen, are concentrated in four areas: financial services, health care, real estate, and energy.
“If a market presents significant opportunities, and if that market is particularly strong in an industry we're strong in, that's going to check the first box,” he said.
Next, he looks at the cost of operations in a new market. “We want to keep our costs of doing business pretty consistent across the firm,” Whalen added.
The third metric is whether there's a sustainable way to pay for the expansion, while avoiding debt, partner capital or diminished profitability. The firm does not have any debt, according to Whalen.
“The numbers year-over-year have been record-breaking, but it hasn't been on the backs of bank debt and cash calls on partners,” he said.
Whalen added that seeing profits increase at a faster rate than revenue shows to him that the firm is getting it right, and also that the focus on identifying individual lateral partners over mergers and acquisitions of groups has been worth the effort. Retention of both new hires and legacy attorneys has been high as the firm has expanded, he said.
“It's a significant investment of time on the front end, but it saves you lots of time on the rest of the cycle, because you're not experiencing dramatic turnover,” Whalen said.
As the firm eyes further expansion, Whalen is focusing on Texas, the Southeast and the Southwest, in cities where the overhead matches the firm's existing costs.
“For the foreseeable future, the big financial markets on the coasts are misaligned with our strategy,” Whalen said.
Growth has also come from slow but steady rate increases, which sat around 3 percent in the last year, according to Whalen. The firm has also seen a modest uptick in the use of alternative fee arrangements, a trend that it welcomes.
“We've typically tried to push that ourselves, because we feel that we've got an advantage in terms of efficiency and overall cost relative to the rest of the profession,” Whalen said.
Another component of the firm's recent strategic shift is a change in how it handles business development. In addition to increasing its investments in growing business as a percentage of revenue, it's also decentralized its spending. Most of the firm's business development expenditures are put into individual and client budgets, a smaller portion is put into individual markets, and an even smaller amount is spent at the firm level.
“That's an example of how the firm runs differently from other firms,” Whalen said.
|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 AllA Look Back at High-Profile Hires in Big Law From Federal Government
4 minute readArnold & Porter Matches Market Year-End Bonus, Requires Billable Threshold for Special Bonuses
3 minute readGrabbing Market Share From Rivals, Law Firms Ramped Up Group Lateral Hires
Trending Stories
- 1Commentary: Freedom's Just Another Word
- 2Former McCarter & English Associate Fired Over 'Gangsta Rap' LinkedIn Post Sues Over Discrimination, Retaliation
- 3First-of-Its-Kind Parkinson’s Patch at Center of Fight Over FDA Approval of Generic Version
- 4The end of the 'Rust' criminal case against Alec Baldwin may unlock a civil lawsuit
- 5Solana Labs Co-Founder Allegedly Pocketed Ex-Wife’s ‘Millions of Dollars’ of Crypto Gains
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