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. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT