Pa.-Based Firms Outpace Industry in Strong First Half
For law firms in Pennsylvania and beyond, the good times are rolling—at least relatively—so far in 2018.
August 21, 2018 at 04:21 PM
6 minute read
The first half of 2018 brought welcome news for U.S. law firms, and it's an even happier time for those based in Pennsylvania.
Nationally, law firms enjoyed stronger demand growth they have seen since the Great Recession. Pennsylvania fared even better, according to recent survey data.
Citi Private Bank reported overall revenue growth of 5.5 percent in the first half of the year, which is the strongest showing since 2007. Demand increased by 2 percent industrywide, and lawyer billing rates increased by 4.5 percent. Likewise, Thomson Reuters reported a 1.4 percent increase in demand industrywide in the second quarter of 2018, according to its Peer Monitor Index.
In Pennsylvania, demand grew 3.3 percent and revenue grew 6.4 percent, both well above the industry average, according to John Wilmouth of Citi Private Bank's Law Firm Group. Among the 11 regions Citi surveys, Pennsylvania ranked fourth-highest for both categories. The revenue increase was not driven by rates, however, which grew by only 2.7 percent, below the national average.
Pennsylvania was roughly in line with industry averages for head count, with lawyer head count growth of 2.2 percent, and equity partner tiers shrinking by 0.8 percent. Local firms saw expenses increase by 7 percent, above the industry average of 4.8 percent, which included compensation expense increases of 10 percent, Wilmouth said.
Industrywide, Am Law Second Hundred firms struggled in comparison with their richer peers.
Citi Private Bank found that demand increased by 3.2 percent among Am Law 50 firms, the highest growth rate, with firms 51 to 100 on the Am Law 100 having the second highest demand growth as a group. But Am Law Second Hundred firms saw a decline in demand, while “niche” firms saw demand increase by 1.6 percent.
Thomson Reuters reported a similar disparity, as Am Law 100 firms carried the demand growth with an increase of 3.2 percent, and midsize firms fared well too, with a demand increase of 1.8 percent. Second Hundred firms, however, experienced a demand decline of 0.2 percent.
But locally headquartered firms in the Second Hundred said they are experiencing demand growth.
|Busier and More Stable
Mark Silow, chairman of Fox Rothschild, said his firm has seen a small uptick in demand.
“I can't say it's been as dramatic as what's been reported” for Am Law 100 firms nationally, he said. But “over the last couple months, we've had more stability. Each month has been a little bit better than the same month in prior years.”
Duane Morris chairman Matthew Taylor said his firm's demand growth is “in line” with averages reported for the Am Law 100, of more than 3 percent.
“Our clients are feeling confident in terms of their businesses, and they're feeling good about the economy. That's driving not only deal work, but it's driving a good bit of litigation too,” Taylor said.
Despite Thomson Reuters' bleak findings for Second Hundred demand growth, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney CEO Joseph Dougherty said his firm had a better second quarter than the average Second Hundred firm. He said demand was up 3.3 percent from the first quarter to the second, and hours billed were up 4.3 percent. Asked how that compared to last year, he said, anecdotally, “We're definitely busier.”
As for Second Hundred firms that did suffer, Dougherty said, “That may be geographical, or it may be toward the back half of the Second Hundred.”
Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr also had a strong first half, managing partner Barry Levin said. He credited that in part to Saul Ewing's merger last year with Midwest and Florida firm Arnstein & Lehr, which has led to increased cross-selling.
Describing the uptick in demand, Levin said litigation is up 12 percent year-over-year, bankruptcy and creditors' rights is up 5 percent and real estate has picked up in the last 90 days. Though, he noted, transactional work has been flat on a combined-firm basis.
|'Apples and Oranges'
Still, firm leaders aren't dubbing this a return to the glory days.
“We're not quite ready to declare victory,” when looking at current numbers in the context of the pre-recession legal industry, Silow said.
“There's been less big litigation in the last few years, and big litigation tends to drive big hours,” he said. “Without significant major litigation it's tough to crack into the 'my-hair-is-on-fire' billable hours of yesteryear.”
Litigation funders may be able to play a role in reversing that trend, Silow said, by creating more opportunities for firms to take on big cases. However, he noted, while litigation funding is a topic of much discussion, and some consideration by clients, it hasn't taken hold of the industry broadly.
Levin acknowledged that the recovery has been drawn out, which can temper enthusiasm about growth. But it has been steady and positive, he said.
Dougherty said litigation has been strong at Buchanan, with the firm's labor and employment and intellectual property sections driving demand along with corporate and tax practices. And, he noted, “The economy is doing well. That helps.”
Taylor said viewing the current legal economy in the context of the pre-recession climate is comparing “apples and oranges.”
“You have to look at really the environment you're in. Litigation on a much shorter benchmark, over the last five years, is stronger than it was five years ago,” Taylor said.
The current state of Pennsylvania firm activity bodes well for the rest of the year too, Wilmouth said. With demand up and collection cycle slightly lengthened in the second quarter, he said, inventory is up 7.2 percent, setting the stage for strong collections through the end of 2018.
Productivity is up too, Wilmouth noted, which is a positive especially considering head count growth in the region. “Not only did the region grow their head count quite a bit, but they were able to put it to work,” he said.
READ MORE:
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 AllPittsburgh Judge Rules Loan Company's Online Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable
3 minute readGC Pleads Guilty to Embezzling $7.4 Million From 3 Banks
Federal Judge Allows Elderly Woman's Consumer Protection Suit to Proceed Against Citizens Bank
5 minute readMastercard CLO Exits After Just 14 Months, Takes Legal Reins of Laser Manufacturer
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
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