Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Contradicting the ordinary rules of supply and demand, law firms have continued to jack up hourly fees faster than flat demand and a projected 1.7% annual inflation rate would suggest. See, “United States Inflation Rate: Forecast 2016-2020,” Trading Economics.
According to a survey of 180 large U.S.-based firms released last month by Citi Private Bank's Law Firm Group, demand for services grew a negligible 0.3% in the first half of the year. At the same time, Citi found, average rates per hour have grown by 3.2%, surpassing last year's 3.1% hourly average price increase. See, “Citi Report: Growth Slowed in the Second Quarter,” AmLaw Daily (Aug. 15, 2016).
The findings echo those by Thomson Reuters' Peer Monitor in August, and the rate trend seems likely to continue. See, “Warning Signs for Big Firms as Report Sees Demand Drop-Off.” Citi noted in its report that “rate increases will likely be the key drivers of full-year profitability growth in 2016.”
Confidence Building
Consultants and law firm leaders say they aren't surprised by the survey findings. “There's a general belief that the worst is over, and firms can gradually start pumping rates up again,” says law firm consultant Peter Zeughauser. “They're getting out front of inflation.”
Jeffrey Lowe, global practice leader of the law firm group at Major, Lindsay & Africa, agrees. “Firms are willing to push the envelope more than they have in the previous five or six years since the Great Recession,” says Lowe, who oversees MLA's annual partnership compensation survey. “In a world that's enjoyed pretty significant compensation gains over the past few years, more firms are feeling that it's time to push back on price,” he says.
The last time a similar pattern emerged, Lowe notes, was in the early 2000s, when law firms similarly pushed through price increases of at least 5% annually while demand lagged far behind. See, “Partnerships More Elusive at Law Firms, Survey Says,” The New York Times (March 1, 2005). But back then, “it was a given that there were going to be rate increases and that those increases were going to be passed onto the client,” Lowe recollects. “The recession changed all that.”
If an imbalance between demand and price persists, that could trigger another correction, he says.
Following the Herd
Citi and other surveys determine the effective hourly price increases by dividing total revenues by lawyer hours worked. But the chief of one top-tier Am Law 100 firm says the “rack rates” at firms like his have really risen much faster ' by close to 5% for the most profitable firms. He says that, at his firm, the increase in the “realized” rate, accounting for discounts up front and in collections, is up about 3%.
Firm leaders say they continually strive to balance client resistance with the need to preserve their place in the profitability pecking order. “If you're just below the top tier,” says one, “you're saying, 'OK, I probably can't close that gap. I know Cravath and Sullivan are going to raise rates 5%, and, if I don't raise rates too, the gap's only going to increase.”
There are good reasons to follow the herd on pricing. “If you're trying to close a gap in profitability, and you don't raise your rates at comparable levels, the gap becomes too big and the benefit of compounding makes it harder and harder to close it,” Zeughauser says.
According to Zeughauser, many firms would rather lift the rates they charge ' knowing they can't collect them ' than reduce those increases to sustainable ones. “They believe that it will be easier to go back to clients when the recession is over and say 'We're eliminating discounts,' rather than to say 'We're going to have a 20% rate hike because we haven't raised rates in four years,'” Zeughauser says.
Still, many firms are trying to match pricing more closely to what their clients will pay. “We have not raised our [rack] rates that much” in 2016, says the head of a firm in the Am Law Second Hundred. “We're at about 2%. We can't get more.” Almost all of that lower increase, however, has been realized, he adds.
Effect of Staffing
Evolving approaches to staffing have also changed the pricing picture at large firms. Many have been moving more work away from their junior-most lawyers to more senior attorneys, with a corresponding lift in overall rates. In some cases, the lower-paid work formerly handled by junior associates is now gone entirely, handled by alternative or lower-cost legal providers.
In recent years, “the mix of practicing attorneys has changed,” said another leader at an Am Law 100 firm. “That makes the billing rate appear to go up.”
The most successful law firms have adjusted their practice mix and partnerships to go after the work that's the least price-sensitive, he said. “The top of the Am Law 100 is dealing off the bottom of the deck, taking out the less productive partners and practices,” he says.
Julie Triedman writes for The American Lawyer, an ALM sibling of this newsletter. She can be reached at [email protected] or on Twitter @julietriedman.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.
Practical strategies to explore doing business with friends and social contacts in a way that respects relationships and maximizes opportunities.