Hourly Rate Gap Widens as Top Billers at Biggest Firms Leave Others Behind
It's easy to be impressed by individual partner rates approaching $2,000 an hour, but the widening gap between whole categories of law firms may mean more for the industry's future.
May 17, 2018 at 05:51 PM
4 minute read
With outsized billing rates making even mainstream news reports—a Kirkland & Ellis partner's $1,745 hourly rate in the Toys R Us bankruptcy recently caught the attention of The New York Times—there's no question clients are watching the numbers closely.
But are they balking? It depends who you ask.
The vast range of pricing markets in the legal business means some Big Law partners have long operated on a different playing field from their counterparts elsewhere when it comes to billing rates.
As stratification between the very top firms and the rest of the Am Law 100 and NLJ 500 grows ever more pronounced, that billing chasm is only growing wider.
Jim Cotterman, principal at Altman Weil, noted that only a handful of firms truly compete for the work at the top of the rate spectrum.
“It is important to note that the very top-end dynamics appear very different from those firms just outside of there, and for much of the rest of the profession,” Cotterman said in an email. “The top-end firms appear to be able to raise rates at a level greater than inflation, sustain those increases all the way to collections and without diminishing demand.”
And, Cotterman noted, other firms aren't realizing significantly greater gains even when they are raising their published rates. “Much of the rest of the market must be much more restrained increasing rates, may give much of the increase back in discounts, billing adjustments and receivable adjustments, and may experience a decrease in demand as a result,” he said.
Uniform rate increases may not be quite as common as they once were. Lisa Smith, head of Fairfax Associates' Washington, D.C., office, said she has witnessed firms looking at rate increases more selectively; person by person and practice by practice. Smith said she has noticed less of a focus on increasing all partners of the same seniority level at a certain rate.
At smaller and midsize firms, the top-end rates hit a ceiling that appears to be spread out across a fairly narrow group atop the firm's partnership, Smith said. Bigger firms, she added, were much more likely to push the most senior or most valuable partners' rates up.
“The interesting thing we see at smaller and midsize firms is rate compression,” Smith said.
The growing divide between the top 50 firms and the rest of the pack is partially attributable to the brand dominance of leading firms, said Jeff Grossman, managing director of Wells Fargo Specialty Group in North Carolina. Grossman said strong practice areas, particularly in transactional matters and M&A, alongside prudent fiscal management at premier Big Law firms, has increased the gap.
The gap between the largest Big Law firms and all others appears evident in new data collected by ALM Intelligence, which culled billing rate information from bankruptcy filings and other sources. For example, the data show an average partner billing rate at Jones Day of $950, while the average partner billing rate across all firms included in the data was $804.87. ALM analyzed partner billing rates data from 53 individual firms.
Other surveys found starker differences. Partner hourly rates at the largest 50 firms—having more than 750 lawyers—recorded billable rates that are 40 percent greater than firms with 501 to 750 lawyers, according to an 2017 analysis from CounselLink, a LexisNexis subsidiary. CounselLink's data found the gap grew 10 percent over the previous year.
Jeffrey Lowe, managing partner of Major, Lindsey & Africa's D.C. office, said the strong economy in 2017 “absolutely” emboldened firms to raise billing rates, but the rate of billing growth isn't quite back to its pre-recession levels.
Lowe said the recession shifted how clients view their role in determining rates, and many clients have become more sensitive. A vast majority of cases involve a discussion of what the rates are going to be, Lowe said, leading to firms deciding to set artificially high rack rates.
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 AllMany Lawyers Are Reeling From Election Results, but Leaders Are Staying Mum
6 minute read'Innovation Over Regulation': Tech Litigators and Experts Share Insights on the Future of AI, Data Privacy and Cybersecurity Under Trump
Inside Track: How 2 Big Financial Stories—an Antitrust Case and a Megamerger—Became Intertwined
Labor & Employment Firms Expect Demand Surge as Bosses Face Uncertainty Over Rules Changes
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Regulatory Upheaval Is Coming. How Businesses Prepare and Respond Will Separate Winners and Losers
- 2Cravath Elevates 7 to Partnership, Up From Last Year
- 3Kline & Specter Hit With Lawsuit From Another Former Associate
- 4USPTO Director Kathi Vidal Announces Resignation Ahead of Administration Change
- 5As Gen AI Acceptance Grows, Lawyers Race to Mitigate Risks
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