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
Inside Law Firms' Best Results in a Decade
Amid Segmented Market, Demand in 2018 Soars for Largest Firms, Report Says
Wells Fargo: Legal Industry Strong, Pa. and Del. Firms Even Stronger
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 AllThe Intersection of Labor Law and Politics Following the Presidential Election
8 minute readSuperior Court Directs Western Pa. Judge to Recuse From Case Over Business Ties to Defendant
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'Didn't Notice Patient Wasn't Breathing': $13.7M Verdict Against Anesthesiologists
- 2'Astronomical' Interest Rates: $1B Settlement to Resolve Allegations of 'Predatory' Lending Cancels $534M in Small-Business Debts
- 3Senator Plans to Reintroduce Bill to Split 9th Circuit
- 4Law Firms Converge to Defend HIPAA Regulation
- 5Judge Denies Retrial Bid by Ex-U.S. Sen. Menendez Over Evidentiary Error
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