Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Strong inventory levels at the end of 2022 helped the law firm industry post moderate average revenue growth during the first quarter of 2023, though the demand environment remains challenging for law firms. Continued inflationary pressures, fears of a looming recession, ongoing international conflicts and disruptions to the banking system in the U.S. and Europe all contributed to downward pressure on demand. Meanwhile, revenue growth wasn't strong enough to absorb the expense pressure firms experienced in the first quarter. And while the collection cycle slowed, strong growth in inventory is a potential positive sign for first half revenue growth if firms can collect it.
These results are based on a sample of 193 firms (81 Am Law 100 firms, 53 Second Hundred firms and 59 niche/boutique firms). Forty-three of these firms fit our definition of either international (less than 25% but more than 10% of lawyers based outside the United States) or global (at least 25% of lawyers based outside the United States). Citi's Global Wealth at Work Law Firm Group provides financial services to more than 900 law firms around the world and approximately 50,000 lawyers. Each quarter, the group confidentially surveys firms in the Am Law 100 and the Second Hundred, along with smaller firms. In addition, we conduct a more detailed annual survey and produce the Law Firm Leaders Confidence Index semiannually.
Revenue grew by 4.4% in the first quarter of 2023, resulting from the collection of some of the high levels of accounts receivable seen at the end of 2022 together with strong growth in the value of billable hours. Firms told us that while December 2022 collections were disappointing, they saw comparatively better collections during January and February. That said, the collection cycle continued to lengthen by 4% while demand declined by 2% as market uncertainty continued to keep capital markets and corporate transactional practices eagerly waiting for deal flow to pick up. On the other hand, litigation and bankruptcy and restructuring work is robust at many firms, as we would expect to see during a down cycle. There has also been no shortage of regulatory investigations work. Investment management, intellectual property and antitrust practices have also reported strong activity levels.
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
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
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.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?