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
Philadelphia. Photo: Shutterstock
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
© 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
- 1Judge Holds New York City in Contempt Over Conditions at City Jails
- 2FTC Lauds Withdrawal of Proposed Indiana Hospitals Merger After Leaning on State Regulators
- 3Ignore the Decline in US Rule of Law at Your Peril
- 4How Qualcomm’s General Counsel Is Championing Diversity in Innovation
- 5Jury Awards $1.25M to Police Officer Who Claimed Sexual Harassment
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