ILNews

Survey shows law firms unlikely to take lead in reinventing the legal market

Jennifer Nelson
May 14, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The most likely change agent in the legal market over the next 10 years won’t be law firms, according to a survey of more than 300 firm leaders around the country. Respondents expect corporate law departments or technology innovations will be the force most likely to lead change.

Altman Weil released the results of its sixth annual Law Firms in Transition Survey Wednesday, in which it found large firms surpass smaller ones in strategic change efforts.

A majority of law firm leaders responding to the survey agree that greater price competition, practice efficiency, commoditization of legal work, competition from nontraditional service providers, and non-hourly billing are all permanent changes in the legal landscape.  For the most part, these are changes that have been imposed upon them from more demanding clients and more competitive newcomers who are challenging the rules of legal service delivery.

Nearly a third of respondents identified corporate law departments and technology innovation as what will drive change in the legal market; 15 percent said non-law firm providers of legal services, and just 10 percent said law firms will take the lead in reinventing the legal market.

The survey found many firms with fewer than 250 lawyers are not making sufficient investments in the future legal market. Nearly half of all firms with 250 or more lawyers report changing their strategic approach to pricing, but only 22 percent of firms with 50 to 249 lawyers are doing so. Nearly 60 percent of larger firms report making significant changes in their lawyer staffing strategies as compared to 41 percent of the smaller firms.

“Larger firms’ bias for longer-term strategic change is most likely a pragmatic response to greater pressure they are feeling from the large corporate clients that larger firms are more likely to serve,” said Tom Clay, Altman Weil principal and survey co-author.

Larger firms are also somewhat more likely to be driven by long-term considerations, including new pricing and service delivery strategies, according to the survey, as opposed to short-term profitability to lock in the firm’s most valuable partners.

The complete 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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT