Pa. Firms Beat Industry on Revenue, Profit Growth: Citi Survey
Strategic investments by Pennsylvania-based firms seem to be bearing fruit, as the region saw more partner profit growth than most others in 2019.
February 19, 2020 at 05:25 PM
4 minute read
Aggressive expansion by Pennsylvania law firms appears to be paying off.
Revenue growth at Pennsylvania-headquartered law firms outpaced the national average in 2019, a new survey shows, and partner profit growth at these firms was better than in all but one region.
Pennsylvania-based law firms grew revenue by 7.3% in 2019, according to Citi Private Bank's latest flash survey, which included responses from 11 firms from this state. Profits per equity partner were up 8.8% at Pennsylvania firms, compared with 6% nationally, second only to the northeast region.
The group of 11 was relatively evenly split between Am Law 100 firms, Am Law 200 firms and niche or boutique firms, according to Gretta Rusanow, head of advisory services for Citi Private Bank's Law Firm Group.
Their revenue growth was driven by demand, which grew by 2.1% in 2019, almost twice the national average of 1.1%. Billing rates, meanwhile, increased by 3.9%, more sluggish than the national average of 4.5%.
"Almost all of the [Pennsylvania] firms reported growth in hours logged last year," Rusanow said. "The demand environment was better for this group of firms and they were better able to collect on their work as well."
Also driving revenue was a shorter collections cycle. It shortened by 3.9% at locally based firms, in stark contrast with a 1.8% lengthening of the collections cycle industrywide.
"That is a standout result," Rusanow said. Only two other regions saw collections quicken—the Northeast (5.1% shorter) and West (2.3%).
Realization was about in-line with the national average, down 0.6% at Pennsylvania firms in 2019. Despite the shorter collections cycle, local firms were able to grow inventory by 3.1%, though that's far less than the 7.1% inventory growth industrywide.
Pennsylvania firms grew head count more than the national average in 2019, coming in at 2.1% growth, while their equity partner head count declined by 1.2%, compared to flat equity partner head count across the industry.
Productivity was flat at the Pennsylvania firms, compared with a decline of 0.5% industrywide. Bradford Winton, a senior vice president in the Law Firm Group who is based in Philadelphia, said only the central region showed an increase in productivity, which declined in eight of the 11 regions, so flat productivity is a good result.
The increased head count came with expenses, which grew by 7.2% at Pennsylvania firms, far outpacing the 4.8% expense growth nationally. Compensation expenses were up 9.1% in Pennsylvania, versus 5.3% nationally, while operating expenses were up 5.8%, versus 4.3% industrywide.
Still, as evidenced by the growth in profits, those expenses did not hurt partners' wallets. The PEP growth wasn't just a result of having fewer equity partners, Rusanow noted, as the region saw net income increase by 7.5%, coming in fifth out of the 11 regions for that metric.
Rusanow noted that consolidation throughout the industry plays a major role in the financial story for Pennsylvania law firms, especially as the market saw several major law firm combinations involving Pennsylvania firms announced in recent months. Winton said the entry of non-Pennsylvania firms to the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh market are also worth noting, though Citi's regional survey only includes results from law firms headquartered in the state.
"The Philadelphia legal market is the most well-known hidden secret," Winton said. It is home to "very high-achieving world-class law firms that are able to do comparable work to the New York firms, and have an advantage from a rate perspective."
Read More
As Pennsylvania Law Firms Went National, Here's What Happened at Home
What's Behind a Wave of Healthier, Faster Law Firm Combinations?
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 AllPatent Pending ... and Pending ... and Pending? Brace Yourself for Longer Waits
3 minute readHow Some Elite Law Firms Are Growing Equity Partner Ranks Faster Than Others
4 minute readTrending Stories
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