Legal Departments Vow to Fight Law Firms' Rate-Hike Plans: The Morning Minute
The news and analysis you need to start your day.
November 29, 2022 at 06:00 AM
5 minute read
Want to get this daily news briefing by email? Here's the sign-up.
|
WHAT WE'RE WATCHING
RATE RAGE - Yesterday, we told you about how law firms are hellbent on raising rates significantly in 2023. This morning, we invite you to take a guess how in-house counsel feels about that plan. As Law.com's Hugo Guzman, Trudy Knockless, Maria Dinzeo and Greg Andrews report, legal department heads are chafing at the idea that law firms would push ahead with aggressive rate hikes when they know legal departments are under extraordinary pressure as the economic outlook sours. "Law firms are claiming to raise rates due to inflation, but anyone who's ever taken an economics class knows that the real reason they're raising rates is because they think no one will notice under the guise of inflation," said Stephanie Corey, a former legal-ops leader at HP and VMware who now leads the consulting firm UpLevel Ops. "That being said, legal departments who are budget-conscious—which are the majority, I believe—can't shoulder this increase. Many of our clients are being asked to cut anywhere from 5-20% of their budgets, so the math just doesn't work out." Jason Winmill, managing partner of the legal department consulting firm Argopoint, said leading law firms are unleashing 2023 rate plans that are all over the map, ranging from no increase to hikes of 45%. "This feels more like law firms throwing spaghetti up against a wall and seeing what sticks. This is a corporate legal roller derby, and I'm predicting there's going to be a lot of crashes, wipeouts and disabled vehicles on the other side of this," he said.
PAY DELAY - Meanwhile, as law firms eye price hikes next year, they're having a heck of a time collecting on this year's bills. Law firm leaders and analysts told Law.com's Andrew Maloney that volatility in the markets throughout 2022 has led to difficulty in pricing and polishing off deals, increasing the collections cycle across the Am Law 200 and causing firms to seek progress payments or consider selling receivables. Through the first three quarters of the year, the collections cycle lengthened by 3.7%, according to analysts at Citi's Global Wealth at Work Law Firm Group. That's in contrast to last year, when the collections cycle shortened by 2.1% through the first nine months of the year, as firms maintained an emphasis on billing discipline that helped them through the onset of COVID-19. This year, though, the delay has also manifested in 10.4% growth in accounts receivable and a 5.8% increase in unbilled time carried by clients, according to Citi. Gretta Rusanow, head of advisory services for the Citi group.
ON THE RADAR - Palo Alto Networks, a multinational cybersecurity company, was hit with a patent infringement lawsuit Monday in Delaware District Court. The lawsuit, which asserts two patents related to monitoring network traffic for unusual or suspicious activity, was brought by Potter Anderson & Corroon and Proskauer Rose on behalf of BT Americas Inc. and British Telecommunications. Counsel have not yet appeared for the defendant. The case is 1:22-cv-01538, Bt Americas Inc. et al v. Palo Alto Networks Inc. Stay up on the latest deals and litigation with the new Law.com Radar.
|
EDITOR'S PICKS
Can the USPTO Director Award Attorneys Fees? OpenSky and VLSI Are About to Find Out By Scott Graham |
Simplicity and Sanctions: How Robins Kaplan Won a $524 Million Verdict Against a Ponzi Schemer By Christine Schiffner |
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRates Will Go Up (Again), But Here's Why Profitability Might Not Be Maximized
4 minute read'Utterly Bewildering': GCs Struggle to Grasp Scattershot Nature of Law Firm Rate Hikes
ClioCon 2024 Takeaways: Navigating Law Firms' AI Future
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Examining New York Court Decisions on Website Accessibility Claims
- 2What to Expect in the Securities Enforcement Space in 2025
- 3Against All Odds—How to Try, and Win, High-Leverage Cases
- 4Evolving Legal Standards to Combat Disqualification of Arbitrators for Failing to Disclose Conflicts of Interest
- 5Class Gifts and NY’s 'Adoption Out' Statute: Guidance for NY Fiduciaries on Minimizing Litigation Risks
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250