Can the UK top 50 match American firms' financial results?
This year's financial results will begin to reveal the true impact of Brexit on UK law firms
June 05, 2017 at 05:56 AM
4 minute read
The Am Law 100 has been published; now it is time for UK law firms to show their hands. Their financial results, many of which will be announced in the weeks to come, will begin to reveal the true impact of Brexit on the country's legal industry.
While last year's shock referendum result led to an initial flurry of advisory work, that short-term fillip was offset by a broader slowdown, particularly in transactional activity. Yet law firms are likely to post gains, primarily because of Brexit-related currency fluctuations.
Having hit $1.50 immediately before the vote, sterling spent most of the following months below $1.30. For UK-based firms with significant international networks, that volatility will inflate their financial results as foreign revenue is favourably converted into sterling for consolidated accounts. (The opposite will be true when they are converted to US dollars for our Global 100 survey in October.)
Allen & Overy, which has almost two thirds of its lawyers based outside the UK, posted a record 13% rise in revenue during the first six months of the 2016-17 financial year, for example. In early May, with the firm's full-year results yet to be audited, managing partner Andrew Ballheimer said: "On any measure, this will be a strong year for our business."
In fact, any UK-based firm with a large overseas presence that does not announce hefty gains in its sterling revenue figure for 2016-17 should be asking itself very serious questions indeed.
This currency boost will be less pronounced at the bottom line, however. While the exchange rates mean that non-UK revenue is now worth more in sterling terms, so too are non-UK costs – local office rent, staff salaries and so on. A flipside to the cheap pound is that it has enhanced the already considerable buying power of the US firms in London. Witness the flurry of high profile hires made by the likes of Goodwin Procter and Latham & Watkins during the past 12 months.
Any UK firm with a large overseas presence that does not announce hefty revenue gains for 2016-17 should be asking itself very serious questions indeed
Further down the UK legal pecking order, the picture becomes less clear. Private client firms have been kept busy by a raft of legislative changes, for example. Mid-market transactional work remains slow. "Without winning market share, many transactional practices will have found growth hard to come by," explains Travers Smith managing partner David Patient, who says his firm had a good year, all things considered.
Across the market as a whole, it looks like a year of flat to low growth. In the panicked weeks after the Brexit vote, I'm sure many firms would have happily taken that.
But it is important to remember that any market reaction up to this point has been largely speculative. The UK only started the formal two-year process to leave the EU in March. Throw a surprise general election into the mix this June – even if the result appears a foregone conclusion – and it looks like 2017-18 will be marked by continued disruption and uncertainty.
The currency gains also mask more systemic efficiency and cost issues. Some UK firms are struggling at around 1,100 chargeable hours per lawyer, according to three sources with knowledge of the situation. In a market of low growth, rising costs, increased competition and intense pricing pressure, that puts a real squeeze on profitability.
During the past seven years, the average revenue per lawyer across the UK top 50 has only risen by 4.3% in sterling, according to Legal Week data, while average profit per lawyer has inched up a meagre 1.4%. The Am Law 100, by comparison, has seen those metrics increase by 9.3% and 24.2% in the same period. UK firms will need to face up to these challenges if they don't want to fall further behind their US rivals.
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 AllKPMG 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
- 1'It's Not Going to Be Pretty': PayPal, Capital One Face Novel Class Actions Over 'Poaching' Commissions Owed Influencers
- 211th Circuit Rejects Trump's Emergency Request as DOJ Prepares to Release Special Counsel's Final Report
- 3Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to ACA Task Force
- 4'Tragedy of Unspeakable Proportions:' Could Edison, DWP, Face Lawsuits Over LA Wildfires?
- 5Meta Pulls Plug on DEI Programs
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