'Survival Mode' Is Now for Some Law Firms, While Others Plan and Wait
"This is not your normal cyclical event," one industry consultant said of the COVID-19 crisis, and law firm leaders are taking action.
March 26, 2020 at 11:57 AM
6 minute read
The COVID-19 crisis has inflicted financial trauma on parts of the U.S. legal industry with unprecedented speed, with some law firms considering—or already beginning to implement—everything from pay cuts to layoffs to insulate their businesses from the worst of the economic fallout.
Industry consultant Eric Seeger said he spoke this week with a major litigation firm that said everything was on the table—laying off staff, pausing partner draws, cutting staff salaries, and culling underperforming lawyers and practice groups.
"This is not your normal cyclical event. The bottom fell out of the economy with no real opportunity to prepare for it," said Seeger, adding that many firms are now operating in "survival mode."
"Things were humming along and suddenly, they have to totally redirect their attention to things that weren't even on their radar a few weeks ago," he said. "This is consuming a lot of management time—necessarily, but unexpectedly."
A number of managing partners from small and large law firms said they haven't resorted to staff or attorney reductions yet—and they hope they don't have to. But if the worst economic predictions bear out, such moves may become inevitable. And they are preparing now.
Fox Rothschild has been engaged in substantial contingency planning.
"It runs the spectrum from rather soft and benign steps to draconian and extreme steps depending on the extent of the crisis. Currently, we intend to continue the status quo, and keep everybody paid with benefits," said chairman Mark Silow. "But we've thought through potential layoffs and furloughs, as well as reductions in compensation. We've been through every option that a responsible business would consider."
Cash flow is something law firms will have to keep an eye on during these times, said one former chairman who guided an Am Law 100 firm during the Great Recession. Seeger separately noted that law firms are probably low on cash right now because they just gave out partner bonuses last year.
"You can do all the cost cutting in the world, but if your revenue is not maintained in difficult times, the cost cutting only gets you so far," the former chairman said.
That's one issue facing William Quinlan, a Chicago-based high-end litigator who runs a law firm of 10 lawyers. Right now, Quinlan said he and his team are very busy and aren't facing a cash flow crisis. But he won't be billing for his team's work in March until April.
"Today the answer is no. The problem with being as small as we are, I don't have the $100 million bankroll. We'll feel the impact faster than Kirkland and Jenner would," Quinlan said.
Benesch managing partner Gregg Eisenberg expressed similar sentiments. Right now the firm's lawyers are very busy while Benesch's leadership is examining the firm's finances. "We believe we're in good shape," he said.
But from Quinlan's small firm to Benesch's 200 lawyers to firms at the top of the Am Law 100, time is the critical variable. Eisenberg said he's not worried about the immediate future. But what happens if the pandemic is still wreaking similar economic havoc in the summer and fall? He pointed out that a sizable portion of a law firm's revenue comes in at the end of the year.
"We have a long runway, our balance sheet is clean. Our concern, and I think it's shared by the entire economic engine, is how long is this going to last? Will this lead us to a mild or a deep recession?" Eisenberg said.
Consultant Marcie Borgal Shunk, who leads the Tilt Institute, noted that cash flow will be a particular concern for firms with a concentration of clients in areas such as retail, travel and hospitality.
She said she's already seeing firms take a step back on distributions and draws for partners, with the logic being: "We're not just blanket saying you're going to make less money, but right now we need to keep some of the money in the firm in order to continue to operate."
The former Am Law 100 chairman said that during the last recession, his firm didn't lay off employees en mass like other firms did, but the partnership did "tighten our belt and constrain hiring."
Already within the past couple of weeks, at least three New York law firms—Goldberg Segalla, Belkin Burden Goldman and Robinson Brog—have made staff cuts; Belkin Burden also cut salaries. On Thursday, the Department of Labor reported that 3.28 million workers applied for unemployment benefits last week, breaking previous records.
But public perception is a good reason for firms to think twice about being quick to slash positions.
"If you, all of the sudden, decide that working remotely is going OK, and you might as well cut all administrative staff, that strikes me as a severe and unpolitical thing to do," said Bill Brandt, president and CEO of DSI Civic Financial Restructuring.
"It's not enough to say, 'That's OK, we'll hire them back in 60 days.' Only a lawyer could make as politically crass a statement as that. If everyone's going to row in the same direction in the time of a national emergency, instead of making the standard economic decision about staff, you might as well add some altruistic elements to it," added Brandt, who has helped handle workouts, turnarounds and restructurings for 36 law firms.
He said that with extraordinarily low interest rates and pressure from the federal government on banks to increase liquidity, firms would be better served by drawing on their existing lines of credit. That would help mitigate against a potential slowdown in payments from clients who have seen their payment capabilities disrupted by both the move to remote work as well as their own cash flow problems.
"I would draw down on the credit line to keep staff on board," Brandt added. "If you completely cut all your staff and hunker down, I don't think that portrays an image to your clients and the greater world of the benevolent law firm that you're trying to be."
Jack Newsham also contributed to this report.
|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 AllFrom ‘Deep Sadness’ to Little Concern, Gaetz’s Nomination Draws Sharp Reaction From Lawyers
7 minute readDechert 'Spark Tank' Competition Encourages Firmwide Innovation Focus
Akerman Opens Charlotte Office With Focus on Renewable Energy, Data Center Practices
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Read the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome', DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
- 2Voir Dire Voyeur: I Find Out What Kind of Juror I’d Be
- 3When It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
- 4Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Virginia Griffith, Director of Business Development at OutsideGC
- 5Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Bill Tanenbaum, Partner & Chair, AI & Data Law Practice Group at Moses Singer
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