Demand Drove Financial Gains at Pa. Firms in 2018, Report Says
Pennsylvania firms outpaced the industry in revenue and profit growth last year, with rate increases that came in below average.
February 13, 2019 at 05:10 PM
4 minute read
Pennsylvania-based law firms outperformed the rest of the industry in revenue and profit growth last year, and they managed to do so with below-average rate increases, a new report shows.
According to Citi, revenue grew 7.1 percent at Pennsylvania firms in 2018, outpacing the national average of 6.4 percent. Demand growth was higher in Pennsylvania as well, at 2.6 percent, compared with 2.3 percent industrywide. Billing rates, meanwhile, went up by 3.6 percent on average among local firms, versus 4.3 percent industrywide.
“It's more a demand story for them than a rate-growth story,” Gretta Rusanow, head of advisory services for Citi Private Bank's Law Firm Group, said of the Pennsylvania firms. Citi's survey results included 11 Pennsylvania-based firms, she said, including a number of Am Law 100 firms with significant footprints outside the state as well.
Expenses were up 7 percent at Pennsylvania-headquartered firms, which was greater than the 6.1 percent average increase industrywide. That was driven in large part by compensation costs, Rusanow said, which increased by 7.9 percent in the region.
Bradford Winton, a Philadelphia-based banker for Citi, said a majority of firms implemented some increase in associate salaries, even if they did not match the $190,000 starting pay that top-paying New York firms and some national firms adopted. He and Rusanow noted that those raises were only in effect for about six months of the year, so they will have a greater impact in 2019.
“One of the things the lawyers and law firms are dealing with is how they are going to absorb that impact,” Winton said.
But that didn't cause locally based firms to fall behind on profitability—profits per equity partner (PEP) were up 8.1 percent among the Pennsylvania participants, ahead of the 7.5 percent PEP growth industrywide. That's due in part to a smaller equity partner tier at those firms, Rusanow said. Equity partner head count was down 0.8 percent at Pennsylvania-headquartered firms, she said.
But overall head count was up 1.6 percent at locally based firms, beating a 1.4 percent increase across the industry.
“It's more salaried lawyers who are being paid higher salaries as a result of those midyear associate raises,” Rusanow said. As those raises show the full-year effect in 2019, she said, it will be even more important for firms to grow the top line.
Still, with their larger head counts and greater leverage, productivity was up 1.4 percent at Pennsylvania firms, ahead of the 1 percent increase nationally. As lawyers looked to get paid for that work, Pennsylvania firms experienced a bit more of a challenge. They saw the collection cycle lengthen by 3.1 percent, compared to 0.6 percent across the industry.
Inventory was up 10.4 percent in 2018 for Pennsylvania firms, greater than the 7.1 percent increase industrywide. That leaves firms well-positioned for the first quarter of 2019, Rusanow said.
Large Pennsylvania-based firms have been expanding in other states in recent years, including second-tier markets in the Southeast and Midwest. Rusanow said that may be contributing to the smaller rate increases at these firms, if they're adding lawyers in lower-rate markets across the U.S., because Citi's survey takes into account the full firmwide results for each firm, not just the local numbers.
Looking ahead to 2019, in addition to increased expense pressure, firms are thinking about transitioning out aging attorneys and bringing younger lawyers in to fill that need, Winton said. A lot of firms are seeking advice on how to coordinate the movement of their more senior lawyers into retirement on a normal schedule, despite the fact that many are not feeling financially secure enough to retire, he said. At the same time, they're focused on keeping associates motivated, despite what has often become a longer timeline to reach partnership.
“It's just the ongoing life cycle of the law firms,” Winton said, “going from baby boomers to millennials.”
|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 AllJudge Approves $1.15M Settlement, Reduces Attorney Award in COVID-19 Tuition Reimbursement Suit
4 minute readPennsylvania Modernizes Trust Administration With New Directed Trust Statute
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Legal Events for Georgia Lawyers
- 2'There is No Time to Waste': Matt Gaetz Withdraws From AG Nomination
- 3The Growing PFAS Morass: Why Insurance Should Cover These Products Liability Claims
- 4Dallas Jury Awards $98.65M in Botham Jean Killing by Dallas Officer
- 5In Talc Bankruptcy, Andy Birchfield Skipped His Deposition. Could He Face Sanctions?
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