Billing rates see small increase

December 8, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The National Law Journal’s 2010 Law Firm Billing Survey is out and it shows that firms are still increasing their billing rates, but not as much as in years past.

The average firm-wide billing rate went up by 2.7 percent this year, the second year in a row that rate increases grew by less than three percent. Firms used to increase their billing rates as much as eight percent when the economy was better in the mid-2000s.

Of those firms responding to the survey, 75 percent increased their rates this year; eight percent left their rates the same; and 17 percent lowered their average billing rates.

The survey was sent to the 250 largest law firms in the nation. Three Indianapolis-based firms made the NLJ’s 250 largest law firms list – Baker & Daniels at 152, Barnes & Thornburg at 85, and Ice Miller at 181 – but only Barnes & Thornburg listed its rates.

Barnes reports it has 494 attorneys in its 11 offices around the country with the average firm-wide hourly billing rate of $367; its median rate is $375.

The three firms did provide some information on how they bill rates. They all report they have discounted and blended variations on the billable hour. As alternative billing methods, Baker & Daniels cites hybrid, retrospective, fixed or flat, and contingent; Barnes and Ice both list hybrid, fixed or flat, and contingent.

Cincinnati-based law firms Frost Brown Todd, which merged with Locke Reynolds in early 2009; and Taft Stettinius & Hollister, which merged with Sommer Barnard in May 2008, also participated in the survey. Frost Brown Todd lists 404 attorneys and an average firm-wide billing rate of $279. Its median rate is $280. It reports that 76 percent of its revenue is generated through variations on the billable hour, which are discounted, blended, or “other.” The firm doesn’t have alternatives to the billable hour.

Taft reports 286 attorneys and its average and median firm-wide billing rates to both be $315. It says 40 percent of its revenue is through discounts on the billable hour. Taft reports 20 percent of the firm’s revenue is obtained through alternative billing methods: hybrid, fixed or flat, and contingent.

Frost is ranked 111 on the NLJ’s 250 largest law firms list; Taft is on the list at 149.
 

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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT