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The billable hour is as outdated as the law library, advocates for alternative billing say.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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT