In Pittsburgh, Law Firms Still Seen as Tenants Worth Chasing
A recent report by CBRE says Pittsburgh law firms are trending toward renewing their leases rather than moving, but that's not stopping them from making upgrades.
November 05, 2019 at 04:23 PM
4 minute read
Pittsburgh law firms are trending toward renewing their leases rather than moving, but that's not stopping them from making upgrades, a recent report on law firm real estate trends says.
Recent law firm real estate transactions in Steel City have consisted largely of renewals, according to "A Shifting Landscape: 2019 North American Legal Sector Trends," by real estate services provider CBRE. And landlords are working hard to get and keep those law firm tenants, the report said.
From the third quarter of 2018 through the second quarter of 2019, the study said, law firms with Pittsburgh locations have been involved in 259,288-square-feet worth of transactions for their own office space.
The report said 25.4% of law firms that had real estate deals in Pittsburgh expanded their space, 38.6% contracted and 33.8% were stable. Meanwhile, 2.3% of law firm offices were new to the market during the period.
Among those that contracted, they did so by 20.8% on average.
Looking at some of the broad trends in Pittsburgh, CBRE said law firms are seeking greater efficiency and modernized workspaces as part of their talent acquisition efforts. At the same time, landlords have been making increased concessions "to capture large legal occupiers."
Those concessions include rent abatement, and oftentimes deals for firms looking to renovate their space, said Jamie Pivarnik, a first vice president for CBRE, based in Pittsburgh.
"It's so expensive to build out space that landlords need to offer the large tenant improvement package to attract tenants," Pivarnik said.
Landlords are open to cutting these deals with law firm tenants in particular, he added, because they are seen as a stable presence in the Pittsburgh business community.
"A lot of the household-name law firms have been around for a long, long time, and will continue to be," Pivarnik said. Having law firm tenants "attracts other firms or businesses that want to be close to [law firms] for physical [convenience] reasons and because the professional environment they bring to any building really enhances the tenant roster."
The report pointed to "trophy properties and historically renovated buildings" in the central business district as the most preferred space for major law firms.
The biggest Pittsburgh law firm real estate transaction from third quarter of 2018 through second quarter 2019 was completed by Clark Hill, which renewed its space but contracted some, at 79,473 square feet.
Others among the top law firm transactions were Houston Harbaugh, which renewed 26,548 square feet of space; Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease, which renewed 20,822 square feet of space; and Jackson Kelly, which renewed and expanded with 14,647 square feet of space, according to the report.
CBRE also pointed out some demographic trends regarding Pittsburgh's lawyer population. The legal services industry employs 13,021 people, giving it a concentration of 1.1%, which is greater than the national average of 0.8%, the report said.
That population of legal services workers was exactly flat from 2016 to 2018, while it grew 1.6% nationally. And it is projected to shrink drastically, both in Pittsburgh and nationally. According to CBRE, from 2018 to 2023 legal services employment is expected to decrease by 8.7% in Pittsburgh, and by 5.5% nationally.
Lawyers, however, were greater in number in Pittsburgh in 2018 than they were two years before.
The lawyer population grew by 3.5% in Pittsburgh, to 5,340. That was greater than the U.S. average, which showed 3% growth in the lawyer population.
The average lawyer wage in Pittsburgh was $132,330, versus a national average of $141,890. And the average paralegal wage was $55,780, compared to a national average of $53,910.
Interestingly, when comparing across the state, Philadelphia lawyers make significantly more on average than Pittsburgh lawyers, at $152,100. But paralegals make slightly more on average in Pittsburgh than in Philadelphia, where the average was $55,740.
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 AllPhiladelphia Bar Association Executive Director Announces Retirement
3 minute readPhila. Attorney Hit With 5-Year Suspension for Mismanaging Firm and Mishandling Cases
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Phila. Med Mal Lawyers In for Busy Year as Court Adjusts for Filing Boom
- 2Bonus Parade Continues, With Additional Firms Matching Milbank
- 3Contract Software Unicorn Ironclad Hires Former Pinterest Lawyer as GC
- 4European, US Litigation Funding Experts Look for Commonalities at NYU Event
- 5UPS Agrees to $45M Settlement With SEC Over Valuation Claim
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