Pa. Firms Grew Q1 Revenue Through Collections as Demand Stayed Strong
Even with below-average rate increases, Pennsylvania firms as a group mostly outperformed their peers in the first three months of the year.
May 15, 2018 at 02:06 PM
5 minute read
The first-quarter results for 2018 are trickling in, and for Pennsylvania law firms, it's mostly good news.
The U.S. legal industry on the whole had a strong first quarter, according to a recent report by Citi Private Bank, and Pennsylvania's performance stood out. Still, the data suggested some challenges ahead.
Among the 11 regions Citi surveys, Pennsylvania had one of the strongest starts to the year, said David Altuna of Citi Private Bank's Law firm Group. But some of the numbers that contributed to that performance are concerning, he said, as they show revenue growth driven by collections rather than rates.
Revenue increased by 9.4 percent among the surveyed firms headquartered in Pennsylvania, according to Altuna. That puts Pennsylvania revenue growth way ahead of national growth, which registered 4.2 percent.
Demand also grew more than twice as quickly in Pennsylvania as it did nationally. Demand was up 2.9 percent among Pennsylvania firms, compared with 1.3 percent industrywide.
Of the regions Citi surveys, Pennsylvania had the fastest acceleration in collections. Industrywide, the collections cycle slowed by 3.1 percent in the first quarter, but in Pennsylvania, the pace increased 4 percent, Altuna said.
The one area where Pennsylvania firms struggled, relative to other regions, was in rates. Standard rates were up 4.8 percent nationally—the strongest increase since 2008, Altuna said—but in Pennsylvania, there was only a 2.2 percent increase. It was tied with Texas for lowest amount of rate growth.
Altuna said the expectation nationally going into 2018 was that the first quarter would be strong, thanks to a lot of inventory left in the fourth quarter of 2017. But that inventory buildup has remained nationally, he said, meaning revenue growth came from demand and rates.
“We expected a strong start. We got it, but we got there a little differently than we expected to,” Altuna said. “We do believe this will be a strong year, but a strong year in the context of modest results.”
Inventory increased by 7.3 percent nationally, which Altuna said is the greatest increase for a first quarter since 2008. But in Pennsylvania, inventory increased by just 5.1 percent, Altuna said.
As the rest of the regions saw collections slow and inventory continue to grow, while rates and demand drove revenue, Pennsylvania firms were unable to raise rates quite so much, and cashed in on some of that abundant inventory from the end of 2017. Still, Altuna said, at 5.1 percent inventory growth, Pennsylvania was able to replenish some of that.
“In any other year, that would be a very fine result, and I'm sure for the rest of the year it bodes fine,” he said.
Pennsylvania firms also stood out in terms of head count, growing their lawyer ranks by 4.1 percent, compared to 1.8 percent growth nationally. That's the second-highest regional head count growth after Northern California, Altuna said. At the same time, equity partnership tiers at Pennsylvania-headquartered firms shrank by 1.1 percent, versus a 0.3 percent decline nationally.
Productivity was flat in Pennsylvania and nationally, and Altuna said that may be good news, considering the head count growth that took place.
Expense growth was 4.8 percent nationally, and 6.8 percent in Pennsylvania—relatively high, Altuna said, but still outpaced by revenue growth.
Bigger (Brand) Is Better
In a separate report this week, Thomson Reuters Corp. saw a 0.5 percent dip in demand nationally, with the average pulled down by law firms outside the Am Law 100.
Am Law 100 firms saw demand rise by 0.4 percent—that was driven by 0.6 percent demand growth at Am Law 50 firms, as Am Law 50-100 firms saw 0.3 percent demand growth. Am Law Second Hundred firms saw a 0.3 percent decline in demand, and midsize firms saw demand drop 1.2 percent, according to Thomson Reuters.
Rates at Am Law 50 firms grew by 6.3 percent, Thomson Reuters found, compared to 3.5 percent at Am Law 51-100 firms. Am Law Second Hundred firms saw rates increase by 2.7 percent, and midsize firms grew rates by 2.8 percent.
Citi, too, saw stratification between the country's largest law firms and the rest of the pack, Altuna said.
“At this point, at least going back two years plus, its undoubtable that the biggest firms are faring the best,” he said.
That may make Pennsylvania's results surprising, at least in terms of revenue and demand, since the large firms headquartered in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh fall below the Am Law 50.
“The story isn't that bigger is better … it's more a commentary on the importance of brand in this market,” Altuna said. “In the Am Law 50, you have a very high concentration of those very strong brands.”
He said firms outside the Am Law 200 with a strong practice niche or industry focus have similar results to those in the Am Law 50.
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 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
- 1The Rise and Risks of Merchant Cash Advance Debt Relief Companies
- 2Ill. Class Action Claims Cannabis Companies Sell Products with Excessive THC Content
- 3Suboxone MDL Mostly Survives Initial Preemption Challenge
- 4Paul Hastings Hires Music Industry Practice Chair From Willkie in Los Angeles
- 5Global Software Firm Trying to Jump-Start Growth Hands CLO Post to 3-Time Legal Chief
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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