ILNews

Partner pay rises despite economic recession

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Partners at Indianapolis’ largest law firms are enjoying healthy pay increases despite the tough economic times.

The city’s big three — Barnes & Thornburg, Baker & Daniels and Ice Miller — collectively increased partner pay an average of 12.6 percent over the past three years, a span that included the worst recession since the Great Depression.

Partner pay at the three firms rose 8.3 percent in 2010, pushing the increase over the past five years to more than 20 percent, figures from American Lawyer surveys show.

Ice Miller paid its partners an average of $590,000 last year, the most of any local law firm, followed by Barnes & Thornburg at $550,000 and Baker & Daniels at $425,000.

The salary increases mirror what’s occurring nationwide within the legal profession, though the increase in partner pay at the big Indianapolis firms last year was slightly higher than the 7.7 percent average for the 200 largest U.S. firms based on revenue.

Many law firms nationwide are emerging from the recession in better fiscal health by shedding overhead and, perhaps more important, whittling down the number of attorneys who share a piece of the pie.

Dividing that pie fewer ways has helped drive up partner pay at both Ice Miller and Baker & Daniels. Both firms have reduced their roster of equity partners more than 6 percent over the past three years.

“There’s certainly an increase in the discipline of who gets to share in the profits, and that’s true everywhere,” said Ward Bower, a legal consultant at suburban-Philadelphia-based Altman Weil.

Attorneys that make partner are typically divided into two groups: the equity partners, who have an ownership stake in a firm and share in its profits, and others who receive a set salary. Equity partners make more and usually command higher fees.

Over the past three years, the number of equity partners at Ice Miller fell from 110 to 102, and the number at Baker & Daniels declined from 110 to 103.

Barnes & Thornburg bucked the trend, going from 185 to 193 equity partners during the same time, mainly because of expansions into several cities.

Ice Miller partners last year received average pay increases of 18 percent — far higher than the 4.8 percent doled out at Barnes & Thornburg and 1.2 percent at Baker & Daniels, according to American Lawyer. Law
                              firm pay

But Baker & Daniels’ partners received a 12 percent raise in 2009 after absorbing cuts of 2.4 percent in 2007 and 1.3 percent in 2008. And Ice Miller’s 2010 increase followed a 1 percent decline in partner pay in 2009. Barnes & Thornburg has managed to avoid cutting partner pay in recent years.

Antony Page, a business law professor at the Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis, attributed the increases in partner pay to prudent management.

“I don’t think there’s any real sort of mystery here,” he said. “Essentially, what I keep hearing is that all three firms have been managed pretty conservatively.”

The only secrecy is from the firms themselves, whose managing partners declined to discuss specifics. Only one, Tom Froehle of Baker & Daniels, agreed to an interview. The other two provided only emailed statements.

Their hesitancy exemplifies a long-standing practice within the generally conservative legal profession to keep financials close to the vest.

Baker & Daniels and Ice Miller said they don’t provide financials to American Lawyer, though Froehle maintained the publication “significantly” underreported revenue and pay per partner at his firm.

Barnes & Thornburg declined to even divulge whether it supplies the information. For those firms that don’t, American Lawyer says it uses its own research to come up with estimates.

Revving up revenue

Revenue at the Indianapolis firms is on the upswing, as well. All three recorded increases in 2010 that exceeded the 4 percent average for the nation’s 100 largest firms and 2.2 percent average for the next tier of firms — 101 through 200 — the grouping they fall into.

Barnes & Thornburg led the way, with revenue of $260 million in 2010. The 7.7 percent increase from a year earlier landed the firm in the 109th slot on the top-200 list.

Since 2009, Barnes & Thornburg has entered Atlanta; Minneapolis; Columbus, Ohio; and Los Angeles.

Alan Levin, the firm’s managing partner, said Barnes & Thornburg also was able to add clients by keeping rates in check.

“The firm’s recent growth is a product of this conservative financial management, coupled with our ability to attract top legal talent to serve existing clients in new markets throughout the U.S.,” he said via email.

Ice Miller’s managing partner, Phil Bayt, struck a similar tone, citing “cost management” and “increased productivity” for his firm’s performance last year. Ice Miller’s revenue increased 6.2 percent, to $129 million, making it the 172nd-largest firm.

Ice Miller’s strongest practice groups included government — with a boost from the federal stimulus package — as well as litigation, employee benefits, labor, environmental, and bankruptcy, Bayt said.

Baker & Daniels recorded $152.5 million in revenue in 2010, up 5.9 percent from 2009, making it the nation’s 160th-largest firm, according to American Lawyer.

Froehle credited the growth partly to the opening of the firm’s Chicago office, which has swelled from seven to 35 lawyers since 2008.

He said aggressively pursuing new business with existing clients helped as well.

“When we saw the economy turning, we really encouraged our people to go out and talk to clients and to find out how we could help them meet their challenges,” he said. “I think it’s been a very effective approach.”

Bower at Altman & Weil isn’t surprised the Indianapolis firms were able to weather the economic crisis and even boost revenue and partner pay while some firms in historically more volatile parts of the country faltered.

“Indianapolis is a pretty stable legal market, especially in relation to the East and West Coast markets,” Bower said. “You don’t have the highs and the lows.”•

Originally published in Indianapolis Business Journal, an IBJ Media publication.

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. 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