A recent Law.com by Maria Dinzeo, “Law Firm Partner Hourly Rates Rose Last Year at Biggest Clip in at Least a Decade,” reports that hourly rates for law firm partners jumped 4.5% in 2022, driven in part by law firms’ fears of profitability losses from inflation and a drop in M&A activity, according to a report from LexisNexis CounselLink.  The report, based on $52 billion in legal spending across 420,000 timekeepers and 1.4 million legal matters, says that annual percentage increase was the largest since CounselLink put out its first report in 2013.

The largest portion of corporate spending went to partners at the 50 largest firms, those with 750 lawyers or more, where the average partner billed at a 46% higher rate than the next tier of firms with 501-750 lawyers.  The 50 largest law firms also saw their market share swell to 47.3%, particularly in regulatory and compliance, mergers and acquisitions and financial matters, where the 50 largest firms consumed 55% of legal billing in 2022.

“There’s all this increased regulatory pressure going on out there.  And who do you want to handle this stuff?  You’re gonna go to the firms that you think had the most insight into this and that’s going to be the big firms,” said report author Kris Satkunas, director of strategic consulting for CounselLink.  She also recently took a preliminary peak at this year’s numbers, and partner rates are on track to rise 5.4%, an even bigger increase than the 2022 record.  Those rates rose 3.4% in 2021 and 3.5% in 2020.

“It’s a very big leap compared to where we have been running for the last 10 years.  But that number will change.  Will it go up or down?  I don’t know,” she said.  “But that’s where things stand today through the first four months of the year.”  Satkunas noted that 25% of partners had increases of over 10% last year.  She said some legal departments also reported seeing double-digit rate increases.  The hikes could be attributed to firms beginning to feel the effects of inflation and less demand for certain types of work.  “I think there’s some fear about being able to hit profitability,” she said.

M&A activity also declined in 2022 after hitting an all-time high in 2020, experts say, when high demand for M&A work, with accompanying litigation, tax, real estate and intellectual property issues, gave firms more work than they could handle.  “M&A was the gift that kept on giving in 2020 and 2021,” said law firm consultant Kent Zimmermann of the Zeughauser Group.  “The massive demand for talent led to a big rate increase and that caused some firms to pull away a lot relative to their peers on profitability and talent advantage.”  Even though M&A work has slowed, Zimmermann said firms are still vying to attract the “best” lawyers as a path toward profitability.

“Even though demand is soft, that rate lever is still important,” he said.  “If there is any recession, it’s looking like it’s going to be short and shallow, so law firms are thinking.  We need to plan two to four years ahead.  We can’t under-do it on the rate increases.  It’s a big driver of our ability to enhance profitability and compete and attract the best lawyers.”

Some firms raised rates twice over the span of 12 months to keep up.  “The internal messaging was we need to pay to be competitive in the market for associates and their pay is going up,” Zimmermann said.  “You need the best and brightest associates and this is what it takes.”

If law firms have only two levers to profitability- raising rates or drumming up more work— raising rates is the easier of the two, Satkunas said.  “Typically, they are more comfortable raising rates.  It’s actually easier to raise rates and go find new customers or find new new work,” she said.  Though alternative-fee arrangements have grown more popular in recent years, this year’s report notes that their adoption remains largely unchanged, and represented 6.3% of total legal billings in 2022, according to the CounselLink report.

“At the end of the day, I believe that most corporate counsel are just more comfortable negotiating an hourly rate discount than being creative.  It’s easier to negotiate a rate than it is to have to think about, what’s the value of this matter, what am I willing to pay for the outcome I want?” Satkunas said.  “I’m disappointed and I really would love to see a real meaningful uptick in the use of AFA’s but it just hasn’t happened.”

A recent Law 360 by Piper Hudspeth Blackburn, “CSX Hits Back at $14M Atty Fee Bid in Norfolk Southern Case,” reports that CSX Transportation Inc. has urged a Virginia federal judge not to award Norfolk Southern Railway Co. and a smaller railroad $14 million in attorney fees for beating back its antitrust claims, arguing that Virginia's state law does not allow it.  In a memorandum, CSX also said that no contractual provision between the parties allows an award for attorney fees as Virginia law requires, and the Sherman Act does not mandate that a defendant obtain a fee award for prevailing on a suit.

According to CSX, Virginia law mandates that successful claims be supported by "a statutory or contractual right" to attorney fees.  Therefore, if at all possible, the only claims Norfolk Southern and Norfolk & Portsmouth Belt Line Railroad Co. can seek are those related to their defense of CSX's injunctive-relief request under the Virginia's business conspiracy law, CSX added.

However, CSX also noted that the railway companies did not cite "a single decision" in the history of the Virginia statute "in which a court has awarded a prevailing defendant attorneys' fees."  The years-long litigation ended in April, when U.S. District Judge Mark S. Davis sided with Norfolk Southern and Belt Line and dismissed the suit, finding that CSX's claims were time-barred.

The companies filed separate motions on May 3 in an effort to get the court to order CSX to pay their court costs and attorney fees.  While Norfolk Southern estimates its costs and fees at around $11 million, the Belt Line put forth a much lower estimate of $3 million.  Belt Line argued that CSX must pay because Virginia law says prevailing defendants in a conspiracy case where plaintiffs requested injunctive relief are entitled to costs and attorney fees.

"Whether CSX sought money damages or injunctive relief, its core set of facts was identical for all claims, and therefore the Belt Line's entitlement to costs and attorneys' fees encompasses its efforts to overcome them all," the interchange railroad said.  However, CSX disagreed Wednesday, claiming that the statute does not mandate that losing plaintiffs pay attorney fees.  Instead, CSX said, the law requires only "a potential discretionary fee award for those fees specifically attributable to the state-conspiracy injunctive-relief remedy."

A recent the American Lawyer story by Dan Roe, “Can Rates Make Up for Expense Growth Much Longer?,” reports that large law firms became more expensive to operate and less profitable in 2022, despite growing in terms of revenue and head count.  While equity partners took home less money, associate and nonequity partner compensation continued to rise. Rate increases managed to keep gross revenue in the black as demand slid by nearly 2%.  Still, the profit margin for The Am Law 100 fell 2 percentage points to 42%, wiping out the profitability gains of 2021 and putting firms below the average 2020 profit margin of 43%. 

“The margin on the billable dollar is contracting, and that is causing law firms to increase their rates, and that is why GCs are saying, ‘Hey, maybe we bring this work in-house,’” says Aon Law Firm Advisory Team manager George Wolf.

Facing seemingly unavoidable increases in personnel expenses, law firms looked to technology for efficiency and real estate for cost savings in 2022.  But despite realization rates holding strong, some observers believe legal departments are at the end of their rope on rate hikes, prompting Big Law to get smart or shrink in the coming years.

Head-Count Growth, Comp Increases and Tech Investments Drove Expenses Up

Head-count growth accounted for a majority of the expense increases in the Am Law 100 last year.  Across the cohort of firms, head counts grew nearly 4.7%, compared to average expense increases of roughly 7%.  Law firms that saw the most expense growth were mostly firms that hired aggressively: Goodwin Procter posted a 24% increase in head count and a commensurate 22% increase in expenses.  Willkie Farr & Gallagher also saw a 22% increase in expenses with 19.5% more attorneys.

In addition to Goodwin, other tech-centric firms that staffed up to meet demand saw similar expense increases: Cooley was up almost 18% on expenses and 11.5% on lawyer head count, and Morrison & Foerster raised head count 6% with an expense increase of 11.9%.  On average, law firms saw expenses rise 3 percentage points more than head count.

Among the firms where head count increases significantly trailed expense increases, firm leaders most commonly cited increases in attorney compensation—particularly for associates.  “It’s a battle for talent at every level, and the reality is, for us to attract and retain and develop the best talent, we need to stay competitive with our peers in the market,” says Husch Blackwell CEO Paul Eberle, whose firm saw expenses rise 18.4% amid a 6.2% increase in head count.

At Baker & Hostetler, first-year associate compensation went up to $200,000 from $175,000, which partly influenced the firm’s 10% average rate increase in 2022.  Vinson & Elkins saw a similar situation, with expenses up 7.5% and head count down 3.2%; firm chair Keith Fullenweider says associate compensation was among the primary expense drivers.  Nonequity partners also got more expensive last year, with nonequity compensation per partner rising 2.7% in the Am Law 100 last year.

Big Law is also going big on tech, with firm leaders citing technology investments as the third-biggest source of expense increases in 2022 behind head count growth and compensation increases.  “From an expense standpoint, we’re witnessing more of a reallocation of expenses than a raw increase in typical areas of spend,” says Alston & Bird chairman Richard Hays. “It’s less on space but more on technology.”

Law firms in the Am Law 100 are spreading their tech budget across multiple areas, but data analytics, automation and artificial intelligence appear to lead the way.  Several firms including DLA Piper, Eversheds Sutherland, and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe are testing an AI legal assistant called CoCounsel, and firms including DLA Piper and Debevoise & Plimpton are building out data analytics capabilities to improve efficiency and increase AI-oriented service offerings for clients.

Finally, the return of travel and events is also driving expenses up, although firm leaders had seen that coming. “Expenses went down dramatically in the form of events, travel, all those things,” says law firm management consultant Ralph Baxter, formerly the chairman and CEO of Orrick. “Every firm leader should be able to manage expectations.  What we saw in those two previous years is not going to repeat.”

Rates Went Up, but Realization Held

The Am Law 100 raised rates by an average of 7.2% by mid-2022, according to data from Wolters Kluwer ELM Solutions released in February, although the report showed significant variance between firms.  Roughly 40% of timekeepers didn’t raise rates at all through June 2022, but 9% raised rates by 20% or more.  About 15 firms in the Am Law 100 brought rates up 10% to 20%.

“Rates typically go up with the consumer price index, maybe 3% to 5% annually,” says Chris Ryan, executive vice president at HBR Consulting. “Now you’re seeing this much bigger swing and variance, which is probably alarming to legal departments who are asked to do more with diminishing budgets, given the state of uncertainty.”

Data collected by The American Lawyer shows that fewer firms were willing to raise rates by less than 3% this year: Whereas more than 20 firms in 2021 kept rate hikes at or below 3%, only seven firms in 2022 reported sub-3% rate increases.  This year will likely be a repeat of 2022, law firms indicated.

Despite raising rates more dramatically than usual, law firms didn’t report substantial drops in realization last year. Having raised rates 10% in 2022 after rate increases of 5.9% to 7.3% for the three years prior, BakerHostetler chairman and CEO Paul Schmidt says clients understood the situation. “Last year was a fairly strong (rate) increase, but with inflation, there was not much pushback on it,” Schmidt says.

How the Inflationary Cycle Ends

Ultimately, if Am Law 100 firms do nothing as billable hours continue to decline, that will indicate that work is leaving Big Law altogether.  “You don’t measure demand for soybeans by how many hours you spend harvesting soybeans,” says Baxter.  “People need legal services more than ever—there’s more regulation, more law, more controversy.  But if you see fewer billable hours, that means demand is moving away from the Am Law 100 to somewhere else.”

That “somewhere” could be in-house legal departments, alternative legal service providers, or regional law firms with lower rates.  “I’ve talked to a lot of regional firms over the past few years that get hired by a big client who has litigation in a place where (the firm) is centered.  The client hires them because they’re there, but they see how good the lawyers are, how responsive they are, how much less expensive they are, and they take them to other places,” Baxter added.

Speaking with in-house counsel, Wolf says legal departments are incensed by associate rate hikes—see the $1,060/hour second-year Kirkland & Ellis associate bill that recently went viral on legal Twitter.  “The rates that are being charged for younger attorneys are driving in-house counsel to start building staff again,” Wolf says.  “The offshoot of that is that’s where the least amount of work is available in law firms—younger attorneys.  And you need midlevel attorneys to help train them, and right now there’s a dearth of midlevels because of the Great Resignation.  That’s causing a problem for managing partners and law firm leaders.”

Rather than pulling back on rate hikes, law firms are looking to squeeze more value out of their personnel using technology, with the goal of reducing staffing costs for clients and compensation costs for firms.  “You’ve seen this shift toward looking at the profitability of individual practices and using data in a different way so they can position themselves in a better light with clients,” Ryan says.  “I think that firms are looking at those kinds of models and are more open to them than ever.”

Firms like DLA Piper, Orrick, Debevoise, Winston & Strawn, Mayer Brown, and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher have all made investments in AI practices of late, with promises to deliver more efficiency to clients in addition to using AI to help them solve their legal problems.  “At its core, we think of it as making lawyers more efficient, increasing their quality of lives, increasing the work product if we can, or at a minimum ensuring it’s the same,” Orrick innovation adviser Vedika Mehera told Legaltech News in March.

Law firms’ substantial investments in artificial intelligence and data infrastructure could also have something to do with the existential threat such technologies pose to the billable hour.  “Generative AI is making it possible to do a lot of the work law firms do way faster,” Baxter says.  “If you continue to base how much you charge on how many hours it took you, then you’re going to have a material hit to your revenue—and an unnecessary one.”

However, on an aggregate basis, the Am Law 100 has made little progress on AFA adoption in recent years, with 18% of its 2023 revenue coming from such arrangements.  In high-stakes litigation, some firms have had success keeping clients who might have been priced out of their services by organizing litigation funding.  At Nixon Peabody, where rates went up 5% to 6% last year, chairman and CEO Stephen Zubiago says the firm has involved litigation funding with an increasing number of clients.  Regardless of which levers they choose to pull, firms will have to find ways to outrun expense growth in a climate where clients are holding tighter to their dollars as firms are losing a grip on their own spend.

A recent Law 360 by Rose Krebs, “Warner Bros. Discovery Defends Fee Bid in Motor Trend Case,” reports that Warner Bros. Discovery Inc. has rejected arguments from the minority owner of Motor Trend Group LLC that it doesn't have to pay Discovery's costs of defending litigation over an appraisal dispute, urging the Delaware Chancery Court to rule that the fees are justified.  In a filing made public, Warner Bros. Discovery and two subsidiaries assert that they have shown that they are entitled to reasonable attorney fees per an agreement with Global Automotive Holdings LLC.

The Discovery companies say in the filing that they have "prevailed on every issue that was actually litigated to a judgment," and thus, Global Automotive is obligated to pay its fees.  The amount being sought to pay for services for the Discovery defendants has been redacted in court filings.

"Global Automotive does not contest the reasonableness of the rates defense counsel charged or the hours they recorded," the Discovery companies assert.  "Instead, Global Automotive contends that the agreement does not provide for fees in actions seeking only equitable relief; defendants did not prevail; and that Global Automotive should get a discount because it did not lose even more decisively. None of those arguments has merit."

In a fee-shifting motion made public last month, Warner Bros. Discovery, Discovery Communications LLC and Discovery Extreme Holdings LLC asserted that per a "controlling agreement," Global Automotive, which owns 32.5% of Motor Trend, is obligated to pay their attorney fees because they are the prevailing parties.  This is based on a ruling in January in which Chancellor Kathaleen St. J. McCormick found against Global Automotive on most of its claims against Discovery Extreme Holdings, which owns 67.5% of Motor Trend.

New York-based Global Automotive sued the Discovery companies in August to preserve its rights under a 2017 joint venture operating agreement, which gives the company a put right to cash out its minority share of Motor Trend at its fair market value.  Under the agreement, if the parties can't agree on the fair market value, a third-party appraiser would make a determination.

Global Automotive alleged that after it requested more information to help it decide whether to exercise its put right, Discovery Extreme and its affiliates engaged in "bad faith conduct" to corrupt the appraisal process and drive down the joint venture's valuation.  The principal disputes in the case were related to long-range plans, synergies, and damages from alleged violations of the agreement.

Global Automotive argued that all of it was essential for the appraiser to determine Motor Trend's fair market value and alleged that the Discovery companies tried to interfere and prevent the appraiser from seeing or considering the information.  It said Discovery Extreme revised the long-range plans for Motor Trend to reflect lower financial forecasts and then tried to prevent the appraiser from seeing earlier long-range plans that reflected better prospects.  Discovery Extreme denied the allegations and argued that the earlier plans were outdated, and were irrelevant anyway since the board never approved them.

In her ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment, Chancellor McCormick found mostly in favor of the Discovery companies.  She handed down a mixed decision on one count, ruling that each side could present whatever material and arguments they wanted to the appraiser, and it would be up to the appraiser to decide how much weight to give to the information.

In their original fees motion, the Discovery companies argue that the court granting "judgment in Global Automotive's favor on an issue does not alter the equation or change the conclusion that defendants won the overall dispute and, thus, are the prevailing parties."  The motion also asserted that "Global Automotive should be held to its contractual obligations and must pay defendants' fees as the prevailing parties."

Global Automotive asked the court to rule that the Discovery companies "are not entitled to attorneys' fees, or, in the alternative, should award defendants only an equitable portion of their fees that reflects their limited success."

"Taken as a whole," a certain provision of the agreement "clearly provides for fee-shifting in any action under the agreement, regardless of the remedy," their filing said.  Also, the Discovery companies asked the Chancery Court to reject Global Automotive's suggestion "that the court should use its discretion to reduce the award to defendants because of their 'partial success.'"  They argued that they "prevailed on all of the contested issues" and "are thus entitled to 'all' the legal fees and expenses they incurred."

A recent Law 360 story by Celeste Bott, “USAG Keeps Fee Award in Nassar Coverage Suit” reports that Liberty Underwriters Insurance Inc. must pony up the remainder of a roughly $2.1 million judgment for USA Gymnastics, a Seventh Circuit panel ruled, saying the insurer failed to show that any portion of the fees incurred during investigations into sexual abuse by former team doctor Larry Nassar were not reasonable and necessary.

At issue are legal costs incurred when USA Gymnastics responded to investigations by both houses of Congress, the Indiana Attorney General's Office, and the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee into Nassar's conduct.  During oral arguments in the case, a three-judge Seventh Circuit panel pushed the Liberty Mutual unit to address why it paid more than $1.4 million toward those defense costs if it believed it owed no reimbursement.  In the court's opinion, written by Chief Circuit Judge Diane Sykes, the court noted that in light of that payment, all that remains up for discussion is the remaining $458,472.26 of the lower court's judgment.

Liberty argued that a district court and a bankruptcy court wrongly applied a presumption established in Thomson Inc. v. Insurance Company of North America, an Indiana case, that an insured's defense costs are reasonable and necessary if the insured has secured, supervised and paid for a defense.

Liberty said the Thomson presumption does not apply because USAG failed to adequately supervise the outside counsel it engaged and did not pay the full amount of legal fees it incurred.  Liberty cited a Seventh Circuit ruling in Metavante Corp. v. Emigrant Savings Bank, in which the appellate court observed that a "prevailing party's general counsel, or similar corporate officer, has a duty, imposed by various provisions of federal and state law, to scrutinize the bills before paying them,"

The panel was unpersuaded by those arguments. It clarified Tuesday that that duty does not require a party to request write-offs from outside attorneys or ask them questions about invoices.  "We hold that a litigant may supervise its outside counsel without refusing to pay portions of legal bills or engaging in hairsplitting about those bills.  Nothing in the case law provides otherwise," the Seventh Circuit said.  Also, no Seventh Circuit case law mentions a requirement that the party seeking fees must have paid its fees in full for the presumption of reasonableness to apply, the panel said.

The insurer also argued on appeal that USA Gymnastics's damages expert had a flawed methodology and that its chief legal officer, C.J. Schneider, was effectively a "rubber stamp" for defense counsel.  It also said his review of the work of his own law firm, Miller Johnson, constituted a conflict of interest.  But an apparent conflict of interest does not negate the presumption under governing case law and "an insurer's objections to a policyholder's selection of defense counsel lose force when the insurer disclaims its duty to defend and turns out to be wrong on the law," the panel said.

Liberty could have reserved its defense that it had no duty to defend and assumed USAG's defense, choosing and supervising the lawyers defending USAG and seeking reimbursement later, the court said.  "Liberty chose not to do so, instead electing to gamble by not defending USAG. With the benefit of hindsight, Liberty now identifies a purported conflict of interest," the panel said.  "The case law does not reward such a choice, and Liberty cannot use the purported conflict to render the presumption inapplicable."

Further, Schneider was not the only one engaging in an internal review of USAG's legal bills, as its CEO and chief financial officer also checked the bills and approved them for payment, the court said.  And, while Liberty asserts that the nearly $8 million in grant funds USAG received from the National Gymnastics Foundation removed the incentive for USAG to drive down costs, the very basis for the Thomson presumption, it does not cite evidence to back that up, the panel held.

Every year, NALFA conducts an hourly rate survey of civil litigation in the U.S.   Today, NALFA released the results from its 2021 hourly rate survey.  The survey results, published in The 2021...

Read Full Post

A recent Law 360 story by Ganesh Setty, “Mass. Justices Told Atty Fee Award Must Be Covered” reports that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court heard oral arguments on whether an attorney fee...

Read Full Post

A recent Law 360 story by Eli Flesch, “Property Cos. Says Insurer Blew Notice to Recoup Suit Costs” reports that a Markel unit can't recoup costs it spent defending a property owner and manager...

Read Full Post

A recent Law 360 story by Jeff Montgomery, “Some Defense Fees Are Shifted to Wi-LAN for Case Flaws” reports that Wi-LAN Inc. must pay a substantial share of the defense costs Vizio Inc. and Sharp...

Read Full Post