Economy has shifted law firm leaders' attitudes

May 16, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The downturn in the economy has led to more law firm leaders accepting legal market trends that many had dismissed several years ago.

According to Altman Weil’s 2012 Law Firms in Transition survey, the legal management consulting company found that the emerging market trends that were viewed with skepticism in 2009 – when the company first produced this survey – have become majority opinions this year.

In 2009, 42 percent of those surveyed believed that more price competition will be a permanent fixture of the post-recession legal market; 92 percent believe that now.

In 2009, 23 percent of firm leaders believed that there would be fewer equity partners in law firms than in the past; this year, 68 percent believed that.

This year, 84 percent of those surveyed believe more commoditization of legal work will be a permanent change; in 2009, only 26 percent of respondents thought that was the case.  

Smaller first-year classes are most likely here to stay. This year, 55 percent responded they believe that, whereas back in 2009, only 11 percent did.

The survey also looks at the confidence and concerns law firm leaders in the U.S. have. The leaders gave themselves a median rating of seven on a scale of zero (not at all confident) to 10 (completely confident) regarding their overall confidence that their firms are fully prepared to keep pace with the challenges of the new legal marketplace. Last year, the median rating was eight.

Altman Weil found respondents’ primary concerns for the next two years include sustaining and growing profitability, succession, and attracting and maintaining talented lawyers.

The full 75-page 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
  1. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT