Editor's comment: Tough, less at the top
Law firms' worlds really did change in 2008-09. It was the worst 12 months for major firms since the early 1990s, and far worse than any in the preceding decade. Profitability, having avoided any substantive fall across the top 50 for more than 15 years, fell by 17.3%. And while there was slight revenue growth, without the strong euro and dollar in real terms fee income fell by around 2%. Dramatic indeed. For some observers, this must have heralded the humbling of the City leaders that so recently rode the markets to global glory. There would be a pleasing symmetry to that. But, unfortunately for journalists, the business world rarely behaves according to clear narratives. Large City law firms certainly took their knocks during 08-09, including job cuts on an unprecedented scale. But in cold, hard business terms it was anything but a bust for the magic circle which, with the exception of Clifford Chance, had a strong year. The newly-emerged breed of global law firm faced its first real stress test and, unlike its banking counterparts, passed with flying colours. Perhaps that is because it was generally a good year for the larger firms; firms just below the magic circle were solid performers for the second year in a row as once-dismissed practices like Lovells and Norton Rose hit a confident stride.
July 29, 2009 at 06:13 AM
3 minute read
The bigger and better excel in an unforgiving market
Law firms' worlds really did change in 2008-09. It was the worst 12 months for major firms since the early 1990s, and far worse than any in the preceding decade. Profitability, having avoided any substantive fall across the top 50 for more than 15 years, fell by 17.3%. And while there was slight revenue growth, without the strong euro and dollar in real terms fee income fell by around 2%. Dramatic indeed. For some observers, this must have heralded the humbling of the City leaders that so recently rode the markets to global glory. There would be a pleasing symmetry to that. But, unfortunately for journalists, the business world rarely behaves according to clear narratives. Large City law firms certainly took their knocks during 08-09, including job cuts on an unprecedented scale. But in cold, hard business terms it was anything but a bust for the magic circle which, with the exception of Clifford Chance, had a strong year. The newly-emerged breed of global law firm faced its first real stress test and, unlike its banking counterparts, passed with flying colours. Perhaps that is because it was generally a good year for the larger firms; firms just below the magic circle were solid performers for the second year in a row as once-dismissed practices like Lovells and Norton Rose hit a confident stride.
Below the top 20, it was a considerably bumpier ride. It has been another awful year for regionally-spread firms, with the partial exception of the stronger national practices. Another year or two like this and regionals will have faded as a credible force within the top 50. As expected, it was also hard going for mid-tier City firms unless they were light on property and mid-market M&A and heavy on litigation. Even though there is little sign of the predicted surge in general litigation materialising, insurance-heavy firms have been obvious winners this year, being the only group to improve profitability.
Looking forward, there is precious little sign of a rebound in 2009-10. The smart money is that demand will be flat or see further minor falls. However, with most firms having restructured, it will take a substantial worsening in conditions to upset the apple-cart again. A final point – there is absolutely no evidence that the law firm business model is failing in the recession. It has proved both resilient and flexible enough to bend with the market, providing your business is not built on high leverage and a couple of modish practice areas. The model will shift again: leverage will edge down, there will be more alternative billing. And it will remain an unforgiving market for the weaker partnerships and badly-led firms. But if this is a broken model, most of British industry would love to fail like this.
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
© 2025 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 AllKMPG Moves to Provide Legal Services in the US—Now All Eyes Are on Its Big Four Peers
International Arbitration: Key Developments of 2024 and Emerging Trends for 2025
4 minute readThe Quiet Revolution: Private Equity’s Calculated Push Into Law Firms
5 minute read'Almost Impossible'?: Squire Challenge to Sanctions Spotlights Difficulty of Getting Off Administration's List
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Church of Scientology Set to Depose Phila. Attorney in Sexual Abuse Case
- 2An AG Just Specified How AI Could Get You in Hot Water
- 3Supreme Court Appears to Lean Toward Letting TikTok Ban Take Effect
- 4Standing Spat: Split 2nd Circuit Lets Challenge to Pfizer Diversity Program Proceed
- 5Judge Jablonski and Chief Justice Rabner Both Acted Completely Properly
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