Paul L. Caron

Thursday, January 12, 2017

NY Times:  Facing Fierce Competition For Clients, Elite Law Firms Take Unusual Steps To Bolster Their Brands

NY Times Dealbook (2013)New York Times Deal Book: With Competition Fierce, Even Elite Law Firms Resort to the Unusual, by Elizabeth Olson:

America’s law firms, even the most prominent, are mired in an era of noticeably modest growth and volatility in the industry, and 2017 promises to be no better.

Fierce competition is prompting firms to take unusual steps to bolster their profiles. Top firms are hiring groups of lawyers to expand specific practice areas, changing pay practices, jettisoning or demoting some partners and staff members and seeking ways to distinguish their brands to set them apart from competitors.

Beyond that, the top-drawer firms are increasingly jostling with one another to win lucrative legal work. It is getting tougher for firms to hang onto traditional portfolios of corporate business and avoid elbowing from rivals.

“It was a growth story in the 1990s, but since 2008, it’s a more competitive world where there is less growth,” said Jeffrey C. Hammes, the chairman of Kirkland & Ellis, a major Chicago-based firm with some 1,800 lawyers worldwide.

The traditional bonds of partnership, if not being undone, are at least being frayed by the rising numbers of partners leaving one big firm for another. Kirkland, for example, last fall brought aboard Paul D. Clement, a former United States solicitor general, and all 17 colleagues from the boutique appellate firm Bancroft. The bold stroke gave Kirkland singular depth in a prestigious practice area, but may also have had unintended fallout.

Since that deal, announced in September, Kirkland’s latest overhaul of its partner compensation system — where average profits per partner are about $3.6 million, according to reports in legal publications — took what some see as a surprise twist. The revamp appeared to shift higher awards to lawyers who handle corporate work, the reports said, leaving some litigation partners to complain privately that their work was being undervalued. Mr. Hammes did not comment on the pay shift. ...

In the past, recruiting a superstar to jump to a new firm was rare, and a few top-of-the-line firms still avoid such hires on grounds that they undercut the profession’s image and damage morale. But unexpected moves like Mr. Clement’s hiring are becoming a new normal for law firm viability as firms poach illustrious lawyers in a quest to raise their profiles, and revenue, according to those who study the legal industry.

A “strong distinct brand is vital to the most successful firms,” said Gretta Rusanow, the head of advisory services at Citi Private Bank Law Firm Group, which recently examined the performance of a group of about 50 large firms from 2010 to 2015. Being the leading experts and trusted advisers “in a select number of practice areas and, increasingly, industry sectors enabled them to attract higher rates,” she said, “and higher rate increases as clients have been prepared to pay comparatively more for what they perceive as high-value legal advice.”

Legal Education | Permalink


If only some former first year associate could tell us what s/he knows that all of these industry observers and decades-long partners don't about the practice and industry of the legal profession!

Posted by: Unemployed Northeastern | Jan 13, 2017 7:56:07 PM

If you read the facts of the story closely without the NY Times spin, what it actually says is that law firm partners and law firm associates are making more money without working more hours and are being sought after and recruited.

Posted by: NY Times | Jan 13, 2017 3:16:27 PM

Right, before 2007, there was no such thing as competition for business and law firms never hired away each other's rainmakers. It was a golden age!

Or perhaps it was a slow news day and the NY Times, ever environmentally friendly, believes in recycling.

Posted by: Timeline | Jan 13, 2017 3:12:06 PM