Pa. Law Firms Faring Better Amid Demand Slump
Law firm lenders say demand is driving revenue growth at Pennsylvania-based firms. "In the context of what's still a challenging environment, these are not bad results," said Wells Fargo's Jeffery Grossman.
November 21, 2017 at 11:34 AM
4 minute read
Shutterstock.com
While reports from Wells Fargo & Co. and Citi Private Bank's Law Firm Group showed slowing demand growth industrywide, Pennsylvania firms appear to be in better shape than most.
According to both reports, revenue growth at firms headquartered in Pennsylvania has not been driven by rate increases, but by demand.
Jeff Grossman of Wells Fargo Private Bank's Legal Specialty Group said Pennsylvania's numbers, as shown by Wells Fargo's survey, reflect a stable market with healthy inventory on hand.
“In the context of what's still a challenging environment, these are not bad results,” Grossman said. “If you pull the most profitable firms out of New York, the gap between them and Pennsylvania is not as large.”
John Wilmouth, a senior client adviser in Citi Private Bank's Law Firm Group, said many of the patterns illustrated by Pennsylvania's results are similar to the broader industry trends. Expense growth has generally outpaced revenue growth, he said, and that held true for Pennsylvania.
However, Wilmouth noted, a slimmer 30 percent of Pennsylvania firms saw a decline in demand in the first nine months, compared with 50 percent industrywide.
Wells Fargo Report
According to Wells Fargo, gross revenue was up 3.3 percent in Pennsylvania compared with the first nine months of 2016.
There were about a dozen law firms in the Pennsylvania group, Grossman said, all of which have 100 or more lawyers. Of those firms, the greatest revenue growth for the first nine months was about 7 percent, and the greatest decline was a little over 10 percent. Revenue per lawyer was up 1.8 percent on average in Pennsylvania, he said.
Demand was up 2.3 percent on average for the Pennsylvania firms, and hours per lawyer were up almost 1 percent. That's good news, Grossman said, as most regions saw demand that was flat or down. Pennsylvania firms had a high inventory buildup at the beginning of 2017, he noted, so they may have collected better than other firms.
Standard rates in Pennsylvania were up 2.5 percent, and effective rates were up 1.4 percent. That was on the lower end of the regional averages, Grossman said. In New York, for instance, the standard rate increased by 4.5 percent.
“The larger the firm and the more profitable the firm, the higher the rate increases were,” Grossman said.
Inventory is up 5.5 percent for Pennsylvania firms, he said, and that bodes well for the last quarter of the year.
Citi Results
Wilmouth said both revenue and expenses increased more at Pennsylvania-based firms than they did on average in the broader industry for the first nine months, according to Citi's survey. Revenue grew 4.6 percent and expenses were up 4.8 percent.
Demand increased by 2.7 percent for the Pennsylvania firms surveyed, which was the second highest of the 11 regions where Citi breaks down its data. The region with the greatest demand increase was northern California.
But Pennsylvania's rate increase was the second lowest compared with other regions, at 2.4 percent. So revenue growth was driven by demand, not rates, Wilmouth said.
As for the rest of 2017, Wilmouth said Pennsylvania firms' year-end results will depend on several factors, but inventory at the end of nine months is up both among Pennsylvania firms and industrywide.
“Assuming that a lot of this is collected in the fourth quarter, that will help bolster your revenue through year-end,” Wilmouth said. “A lot of it will depend on how collections grow and whether the expense growth can be moderated somewhat.”
Inventory was up 3.4 percent in Pennsylvania, which was right around the industry average, he said. Accounts receivable were up 6.5 percent, but unbilled time was only up 0.6 percent. Because of the latter number, Wilmouth said, the revenue pipeline could be week at those firms in the early part of 2018.
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'The World Didn't End This Morning': Phila. Firm Leaders Respond to Election Results
4 minute readSettlement With Kleinbard in Diversity Contracting Tiff Allows Pa. Lawyer to Avoid Sanctions
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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