As Pa. Billing Rates Rise, Big Firms Pull Further Ahead
Law firms in Pennsylvania's biggest cities just about match the rest of the industry when it comes to billing rate increases, according to a recent report. And those rates are climbing faster than they have since the recession, despite weak demand for legal services.
April 09, 2017 at 06:21 PM
4 minute read
|
Law firms in Pennsylvania's biggest cities just about match the rest of the industry when it comes to billing rate increases, according to a recent report. And those rates are climbing faster than they have since the recession, despite weak demand for legal services.
The Real Rate Report, released jointly by Wolters Kluwer's ELM Solutions and CEB, showed that rates have increased by 5.4 percent industrywide, on average, from 2014 to 2015. The report is based on data from legal fees paid by 97 companies to more than 5,900 law firms.
In 2015, the report found, Philadelphia experienced an average rate increase of 4.5 percent among 156 firms included in the data, which billed a total of more than 300,500 hours.
In Pittsburgh, rates increased 5 percent among 47 firms that billed just over 72,000 hours.
Pittsburgh and Philadelphia are considered “stable” markets because their rates and rate increases were near the average, said David Moran, senior director of product management, legal analytics for Wolters Kluwer's ELM Solutions, in an email.
|Paying a Premium
Moran said firm size and office location were two of the key indicators of rates. As was the case industrywide, rate increases were generally larger at firms with higher head counts.
For instance, in Philadelphia, firms with 50 or fewer lawyers increased rates by 2 percent on average, compared with 6 percent at firms with more than 500 lawyers.
In Pittsburgh, firms with 50 or fewer lawyers raised rates 4 percent, and those with 51 to 200 raised rates 2 percent on average. But at firms with 501 to 1,000 lawyers, which accounted for 1 percent of hours billed in Pittsburgh, rates increased by 9 percent. And at firms with more than 1,000 lawyers, which billed 71 percent of the Pittsburgh hours, rates grew by 6 percent on average.
Also in line with the national trend, rates for associates grew twice as much as partner rates in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.
In Philadelphia, partner rates increased 3 percent to a mean real rate of $537, while associate rates rose 6 percent, to $333.
Partner rates in Pittsburgh also rose 3 percent, to a mean of $479, and associate rates increased by 7 percent, to $307.
One way Pittsburgh stood out was in paralegal rates, which increased 10 percent from 2014. That brought the mean real rate for Pittsburgh paralegals to $169, still lower than the rate of $175 in Philadelphia.
“It is possible that it has something to do with the growth of a particular type of matter—more standard 'operational' cases often have a higher percentage of hours worked by paralegals,” Moran said. “There is also some thought that we may see associate and paralegal rates go up as higher value-added work is pushed to less senior roles—the higher rates reflect the increased capacity of the timekeepers to do the work.”
In Philadelphia, despite the overall increase of 4.5 percent, rates in four of the five most billed practice areas increased by only 1 to 3 percent. In asbestos litigation, which accounted for 6 percent of hours billed, rates increased by just 1 percent. But in nonlitigation corporate work, the second most billed practice area, rates increased by 7 percent over 2014.
In Pittsburgh, the most billed areas also had higher-than-average rate increases for the market. Nonlitigation employment and labor practices increased rates by 8 percent, and nonlitigation merger and acquisition work increased rates by 9 percent. In contrast, nonlitigation commercial work had no rate increase over 2014.
Moran acknowledged that corporate clients have been seeking greater value from the law firms they work with. But that does not always keep firms from raising their rates, he said.
“Clients are willing to pay a premium for premium work, but will look to bring in-house or look for third-party alternatives for regular 'transactional work,'” he said. “Also, with increased technology, data and intelligence, corporate clients are driving more rigorous adherence to billing guidelines and disciplined billing practices.”
Lizzy McLellan can be contacted at 215-557-2493 or [email protected]. Follow her on Twitter @LizzyMcLellTLI.
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 AllSpecial Section: Products Liability, Mass Torts & Class Action/Personal Injury
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Phila. Jury Hits Sig Sauer With $11M Verdict Over Alleged Gun Defect
- 2Lost in the Legal Maze: How State Regulations Are Hindering Hemp Operators' Success
- 3New Associates Yearbook 2024
- 4Disbarred Attorney Alleges ADA Violations in Lawsuit Against Miami-Dade Judges
- 5Free Speech Causes a Neighborly Feud
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