Top Law Schools

Highlights from the 2017 survey include:

- Chronic under-performance: 88% of firms say they have chronically under-performing lawyers. Equity partners are not sufficiently busy in 52% of firms, and non-equity partners aren’t busy enough in 61% of firms. Overcapacity is diluting profitability in 61% of law firms.

- The levers of profitability: Cutting office space, under-performing lawyers, excess staff, and low margin practices and offices are yielding immediate bottom-line results. Lateral acquisitions and investments in business development, while widely pursued, are less effective drivers of profitability at least in the short-term.

- Linking pricing and efficiency: Only 30% of law firms routinely link discounted, capped and alternative fees to changes in how work is staffed and delivered – displaying a critical misunderstanding of the interdependence of the elements of their business model which include scope, staffing, price, work flows, project management and margin.

- Innovative experiments: 50% of law firms report they are actively engaged in experiments to test innovative ideas and methods. These initiatives run the gamut from technology and data analytics to new business ventures, efficiency, pricing and staffing improvements, and efforts aimed directly at client engagement and retention.

- The problem of partner resistance: 65% of law firm leaders say their partners resist most change efforts, and 56% say most partners are unaware of what they might do differently. This reluctance to change is an intractable problem in many law firms.

“Lawyers are very good at interpreting data that’s set before them, but they also need to ask: What don’t we know that might matter?” said Altman Weil principal and survey co-author Tom Clay. “Adequately educating partners about current market realities is a critical first step in achieving necessary strategic change.”

Survey Methodology
Conducted in March and April 2017, the Law Firms in Transition Survey polled Managing Partners and Chairs at 798 US law firms with 50 or more lawyers. Completed surveys were received from 386 firms, including 50% of the 350 largest US law firms and 50% of the Am Law 200.

The complete survey report includes sections on industry trends, market demand and competition, profitability, pricing, efficiency of legal service delivery, lawyer staffing strategies, law firm growth and economic performance.

It is available to download at: www.altmanweil.com/LFiT2017.

Jchance wrote:^
for overachievers, aka non-underperformers, law firms are better off hiring federal clerks and Coif grads from T25 or T1 than medians from T14.

Npret wrote:Are t they talking about underperforming partners?

Jchance wrote:

Npret wrote:Are t they talking about underperforming partners?

Not necessary.

"in 25% of firms, associates don't have full workloads.
... 88% of firms leaders said they have chronically underperforming lawyers." (pg. 8 )

dabigchina wrote:The bit about alternative fee structures blows, If anyone has ever worked on a poorly negotiated fixed fee engagement, they would know that it's the most miserable experience possible.

Anonymous User wrote:

dabigchina wrote:The bit about alternative fee structures blows, If anyone has ever worked on a poorly negotiated fixed fee engagement, they would know that it's the most miserable experience possible.

I work on patents at an absurdly low fixed budget. This is biglaw too. My realization rate is fucking terrrrrible.

I have no idea how this will look come review time. It can't possibly be sustainable

Desert Fox wrote:The problem isn't that revenue is falling. It's that firm just want to raise profits. The only option left is to make associates more efficient. They want to push average billing per associate higher. Only way to do that is to fire people.

Desert Fox wrote: I think what they don't realize is that you need some extra capacity to be able to take a good case when you can get it.

dixiecupdrinking wrote:

Desert Fox wrote: I think what they don't realize is that you need some extra capacity to be able to take a good case when you can get it.

Lmao at law firm management ever turning down a case because their associates don't have capacity.

Partner: "sorry you have to work memorial day, the firm is really busy"
Associate: "did you consider hiring more associates or not taking this case we can't reasonably staff?"
Partner: [blank stare]

dixiecupdrinking wrote:

Desert Fox wrote: I think what they don't realize is that you need some extra capacity to be able to take a good case when you can get it.

Lmao at law firm management ever turning down a case because their associates don't have capacity.

Partner: "sorry you have to work memorial day, the firm is really busy"
Associate: "did you consider hiring more associates or not taking this case we can't reasonably staff?"
Partner: [blank stare]

Anonymous User wrote:

dixiecupdrinking wrote:

Desert Fox wrote: I think what they don't realize is that you need some extra capacity to be able to take a good case when you can get it.

Lmao at law firm management ever turning down a case because their associates don't have capacity.

Partner: "sorry you have to work memorial day, the firm is really busy"
Associate: "did you consider hiring more associates or not taking this case we can't reasonably staff?"
Partner: [blank stare]

Idk. Chairman at my (NYC v20) firm specifically listed it as a reason we have so many lawyers. The types of matters he seemed to be talking about are a little bit more than involving one day or weekend though.

lolwat wrote:

dixiecupdrinking wrote:

Desert Fox wrote: I think what they don't realize is that you need some extra capacity to be able to take a good case when you can get it.

Lmao at law firm management ever turning down a case because their associates don't have capacity.

Partner: "sorry you have to work memorial day, the firm is really busy"
Associate: "did you consider hiring more associates or not taking this case we can't reasonably staff?"
Partner: [blank stare]

If everyone's already killing themselves billing 2.7k/year working nights, weekends and holidays, and 10 great cases suddenly come through the door, the firm isn't going to turn down those cases but now they suddenly have to hire more people. When those cases settle or work is otherwise slow and everyone's only billing 1.7k/year, rather than just being okay with that, the firms then decide to fire a bunch of associates to get the remaining ones billing 2.7k/year again. And then when cases come in again, they hire again, etc...

Or the firm can be reasonable and just keep a good balance of lawyers and not care so damn much if there's a few months or a year where the associates are only billing 1.7k.

I think firms are too focused on profitability but then again if it were my $3mil/year that's being dipped into by associates not billing enough I would probably think about how to raise it back up to $3mil/year too.

Jchance wrote:^
for overachievers, aka non-underperformers, law firms are better off hiring federal clerks and Coif grads from T25 or T1 than medians from T14.

jkpolk wrote: And literally FUCK the firms for saying any associate is under performing. It's a job that people do for money. There is no skin in the game other than the continued paycheck. If management doesn't like performance, the answer is not to passive-aggressively waive "underperforming" at people through some poll - management should work with folks, figure out whether expectations are reasonable, etc. or, alternatively, put on grown up pants and accept it as life, we aren't automatons. People can only work as much as people can work/are given opportunities.

If law firms are systematically hiring idiots/the wrong people who can't mentally do the work, that's not the fault of the associates in question. Revisit hiring models. Ask a fucking battery of consulting "thought process" questions regarding how someone would tackle a legal issue. If hiring is the problem, that's all on the firms, not the employees (and i seriously doubt this is the problem).