ILNews

Law firm forecast sees declining profits

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Declining profits could be on the dockets of many law firms again this year.

New Jersey legal consultancy Hildebrandt International expects profit-per-partner, a measuring stick of firm success, to decline 5 to 15 percent.

If the forecast released earlier this month proves accurate, it would mark the second consecutive year in which the average profit for law firms has fallen, a dubious distinction almost unheard of in the legal profession. Profits ranged from between flat and minus 10 percent in 2008, Hildebrandt said. Companies battered by the reeling economy are scaling back on legal counsel, unless of course they need bankruptcy advice. To compensate, firms are taking such drastic measures as reducing bonuses, freezing associate salaries, postponing new initiatives, instituting layoffs, and weeding out unprofitable partners.

Mike Williams, managing partner of Indianapolis mid-size firm Krieg DeVault LLP, thinks the mega firms that have locations in the "money centers" - Chicago and coastal cities - are hurting the most.

Krieg DeVault has weathered the storm relatively unscathed, Williams said, although at least a handful of local rivals have trimmed support staff to cut costs.

"There's no question that with the downturn in the economy, some of the legal services that clients have used law firms for, it's not happening now," Williams said.

Real estate, financing, and merger-and-acquisition activity is particularly slow. Conversely, the deepening recession is generating more lawsuits driven by massive layoffs.

The Hildebrandt report said the gloomy conditions provide law firms a chance to adjust their business models to appeal more to clients, including offering them alternative billing options.

The billable hour is as outdated as the law library, advocates for alternative billing say. The more hours billed, the more money a firm makes, which could encourage inefficiency, they say.

The option that could challenge the billable hour is a fixed-fee structure that gives clients a more accurate upfront estimate for the cost of services, allowing them to better budget for the expense.

A contracting economy arguably is fanning the argument for fixed fees, said Bob Birge of Law Firm Marketing Network, who has supported the fixed-fee model for years. Yet, firms have been reluctant to abandon billable hours because they've driven profits.

"Things have been good," he said. "Why shake it up when everybody's been making money?"

If billing correctly, firms can maintain profits while keeping clients satisfied, Birge said. If a fee for a real-estate transaction typically ranges between $5,000 and $10,000, for instance, a firm might charge $7,000.

But, Birge added, "Because nobody else does it, no one does it."

Indeed, the Hildebrandt report said some firms would have a difficult time making changes it recommended.

"We've gone through a period where everyone got used to growth and expansion," said James Jones, a vice president of Hildebrandt, in a statement. "People haven't really had to look at doing more with less."

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT