ILNews

Survey shows law firms unlikely to take lead in reinventing the legal market

Jennifer Nelson
May 14, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The most likely change agent in the legal market over the next 10 years won’t be law firms, according to a survey of more than 300 firm leaders around the country. Respondents expect corporate law departments or technology innovations will be the force most likely to lead change.

Altman Weil released the results of its sixth annual Law Firms in Transition Survey Wednesday, in which it found large firms surpass smaller ones in strategic change efforts.

A majority of law firm leaders responding to the survey agree that greater price competition, practice efficiency, commoditization of legal work, competition from nontraditional service providers, and non-hourly billing are all permanent changes in the legal landscape.  For the most part, these are changes that have been imposed upon them from more demanding clients and more competitive newcomers who are challenging the rules of legal service delivery.

Nearly a third of respondents identified corporate law departments and technology innovation as what will drive change in the legal market; 15 percent said non-law firm providers of legal services, and just 10 percent said law firms will take the lead in reinventing the legal market.

The survey found many firms with fewer than 250 lawyers are not making sufficient investments in the future legal market. Nearly half of all firms with 250 or more lawyers report changing their strategic approach to pricing, but only 22 percent of firms with 50 to 249 lawyers are doing so. Nearly 60 percent of larger firms report making significant changes in their lawyer staffing strategies as compared to 41 percent of the smaller firms.

“Larger firms’ bias for longer-term strategic change is most likely a pragmatic response to greater pressure they are feeling from the large corporate clients that larger firms are more likely to serve,” said Tom Clay, Altman Weil principal and survey co-author.

Larger firms are also somewhat more likely to be driven by long-term considerations, including new pricing and service delivery strategies, according to the survey, as opposed to short-term profitability to lock in the firm’s most valuable partners.

The complete survey is available on Altman Weil’s website
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT