Law Firms See Warning Signs of Slower Growth in 2019
New reports from Thomson Reuters and Citi Private Bank both found softening demand and growing expenses in the first quarter of 2019.
May 14, 2019 at 05:00 AM
4 minute read
After a high-flying 2018, two snapshots of the first quarter of 2019 should give law firms pause.
The Thomson Reuters' Peer Monitor Index found that demand and productivity had stalled in the first four months of 2019, while higher associate salaries contributed to surging expenses. But large firms both inside and outside of the Am Law 50 saw growth in another area: billing rates.
While the largest firms were the likeliest to benefit from significant rate hikes over 2017 and 2018, their smaller peers are now sharing in the bounty. According to Thomson Reuters, worked rates grew 3.8% over the last quarter, the strongest quarterly growth since 2012.
“The Am Law Second Hundred firms are now coming to that rate growth table,” said Brent Turner, manager at Peer Monitor.
While the Am Law 50 again led rate growth, with an increase of 5.5%, the Second Hundred raised rated a significant 4.1%, outpacing the AmLaw 51-100 (with growth of 3.9%) and midsize firms (3.3%).
A report released Monday by Citi Private Bank's law firm group also highlighted industry rate hikes, finding that lawyer billing rates grew 4.4% in the first quarter. But its breakdown differed: 5% growth for the top 50 firms, 4.1% for the second fifty, and 3% for the second hundred.
But both Citi and Thomson Reuters found that these rate increases were accompanied by softening demand. According to Thomson Reuters, demand dipped by 0.1%. Citi detected a drop of 0.3%—though revenues still grew faster than in the first quarter last year.
Turner drew a parallel to 2018, where demand slipped in the first quarter, before rebounding over the final three quarters of the year. That broke from the pattern of the previous years, where first quarter growth was followed by progressively decelerating demand.
He noted that litigation has been lagging, particularly in the midsize firm segment. Transactional work was mixed, with corporate work up 0.2%, while real estate dropped 0.8% and tax fell 2.1%.
The question for firms, according to Turner, is whether “2019 going to be like years before, or is it going to be like 2018.”
|Expenses and Productivity
Diminished demand isn't the only worry. Both Thomson Reuters and Citi highlighted rising expenses in the first quarter.
One key piece of the puzzle was the impact of last year's associate salary increases.
Citi identified expense growth of 6.5%, driven by a 7.2% increase in lawyer compensation expenses. Thomson Reuters, meanwhile, said that direct expenses grew by 4.9%. Associate salaries account for 35% of that category, according to Turner.
Citi analyst David Altuna said that the salary increases suggested that firms were beginning to budge from the expense discipline they employed during the recession and post recession years.
“We do find that there's quite a push coming through from lawyer compensation,” he said. “We know that the associate compensation increases at midpoint last year are pushing that up higher, particularly for large firms.”
Turner, meanwhile, suggested that these increasing expenses exacerbated the challenge posed by growing head counts amid flat demand. The combination of the latter two factors led to a productivity decline of 1.8%, the worst dip since the third quarter of 2017.
While head counts grew at 1.6% in the first quarter of 2017, the increase dipped to 0.6% in the first quarter of 2018.
“We finally saw firms reigning in hiring practices, because of so many years of flat demand,” he said.
But head counts were up again in the last quarter, rebounding to 1.8%. That same rebound was not evident in the international markets that Thomson Reuters tracks.
“In other jurisdictions, we've seen them be much more disciplined,” Turner said. “U.S. firms were, at least from one quarter's worth of data, much quicker to get back to their historic hiring patterns.”
|Read More
Law Firm Revenue Rose as Demand Dropped in the First Quarter of 2019
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 All'Further Investment in Power' Will Drive Big Law Business—But What About Clean Energy Projects?
6 minute readLegal Departments Gripe About Outside Counsel but Rarely Talk to Them
4 minute readAs Profits Rise, Law Firms Likely to Make More AI Investments in 2025
Trending Stories
- 1Connecticut Movers: Year-End Promotions, Hires and an Office Opening
- 2Luigi Mangione Defense Attorney Says NYC Mayor’s Comments on Case Raise Fair Trial Concerns
- 3Revisiting the Boundaries Between Proper and Improper Argument: 10 Years Later
- 4Hochul Vetoes 'Grieving Families' Bill, Faulting a Lack of Changes to Suit Her Concerns
- 5Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Customers: Developments on ‘Conquesting’ from the Ninth Circuit
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