Times Top News

Times Top News

‘Very strong performance’ reported for law firms in 2024, with revenue increasing 12.5%

by | Jan 29, 2025 | Law


  1. Home
  2. Daily News
  3. ‘Very strong performance’ reported for law…

Law Firms

‘Very strong performance’ reported for law firms in 2024, with revenue increasing 12.5%

By Debra Cassens Weiss

Growth in billing rates contributed to a 12.5% increase in law firm revenue in 2024, up from 6% in 2023, according to a year-end survey. (Image from Shutterstock)

Growth in billing rates contributed to a 12.5% increase in law firm revenue in 2024, up from 6% in 2023, according to a year-end survey by Wells Fargo’s Legal Specialty Group.

The 2024 increase was topped only by a 14% increase in revenue reported in 2021.

“The law firm industry experienced very strong performance in 2024,” Wells Fargo reported in a media summary.

More than 130 firms, most of them among the nation’s 200 top-grossing firms, participated in the survey.

Other survey findings for 2024 included:

  • Standard billing rates increased 9.1%, up from an 8.3% increase in 2023.

  • Average profits per equity partner increased 16.9% as firms kept “tight control” over the size of equity partner ranks, which increased by only 0.3%.

  • Demand, measured by billable hours, increased 3.5% for the year, up from 0.7% in 2023.

  • Total expenses increased 9%, up from 6% in 2023. The number likely reflected higher associate bonuses and more year-end expense prepayments.

Firms among the Am Law 50, representing the nation’s 50 highest-grossing firms, did better than the rest. They had growth of 13.9% for revenue, 10% for billing rates, 3.9% for demand and 18.9% for profits per equity partner.





Source link

Dechert sues former lawyer for alleged salary overpayment

by | Jan 29, 2025 | Law


  1. Home
  2. Daily News
  3. Dechert sues former lawyer for alleged salary…

Law Firms

Dechert sues former lawyer for alleged salary overpayment

By Debra Cassens Weiss

Dechert has sued a former senior project attorney for more than $90,000, the money that the law firm said it is still owed after a $132,250 salary overpayment. (Image from Shutterstock)

Dechert has sued a former senior project attorney for more than $90,000, the money that the law firm said it is still owed after a $132,250 salary overpayment.

The Jan. 21 lawsuit filed in the trial-level New York Supreme Court blames the salary overpayment on a clerical error.

Law.com has the story.

The suit says senior project attorney Kathleen Fay continued to receive her regular salary for a 7½ month period ending in May 2024, even though she wasn’t performing billable work at that time. A temporary employment agreement in effect during that period provided that Fay would be paid only for billable work assigned to her and performed.

The agreement was reached in late September 2023 after Fay asked to remain listed on the firm’s website. Fay’s contract as a project attorney ended without an extension June 30, 2023, but she continued to be paid for three months and was offered consulting services to help with her job search, the suit says.

When Dechert discovered its mistake in mid-May 2024, it demanded its money back. Fay did not comply, the suit says.

“In an attempt to make itself whole,” the suit says, Dechert “exercised its rights to recoup certain payments made to or otherwise due to” Fay.

Fay told Law.com that the suit allegations “are baseless and its actions are unethical.” She worked on the firm’s product liability team for more than a decade “and am now a law librarian earning less than a paralegal,” she said.

“It is unfortunate that Dechert has chosen to remove my vested funds from my 401(k) account and to bully me in public,” Fay told Law.com. “However, the equities and the law favor me and I look forward to vindicating my rights and reputation in court.”





Source link

Access to Justice 2.0: How AI-powered software can bridge the gap

by | Jan 24, 2025 | Law



Many predictions have been made about the impact of artificial intelligence on the legal profession. From the demise of the billable hour to robots replacing lawyers, projections have run the gamut. Among the most optimistic is the suggestion that rapid advancements in AI could significantly improve access to justice by providing underserved communities with easily accessible and much-needed legal information.

As much as I would like this to be true, the cynic in me remains skeptical that altruism will ever truly trump capitalism. However, the growing momentum behind the recent wave of tools designed to close the access-to-justice gap might just prove me wrong.

How can AI improve access to justice?

There are several ways that AI software can potentially expand access to justice. First, AI tools designed to increase the efficiency of law firm workflows can enable lawyers to take on more cases and provide affordable and effective representation for their clients. This category of tools has been discussed in many of my prior columns and includes AI functionality integrated into software platforms that include document management, law practice management, legal billing, legal research, contract analysis, brief writing and more.

AI software can also be designed specifically for legal professionals who often represent underserved communities, such as those employed by legal aid organizations or attorneys who often handle assigned matters in criminal or family court. By streamlining their workflows and reducing redundant processes, AI technology can enable them to represent more clients.

Finally, AI-powered chatbots that provide legal information directly to the consumer are another way to reduce access-to-justice barriers. Navigating our complex court systems can be challenging even for experienced litigators, so user-friendly interfaces on court websites that simplify judicial processes and procedures can make all the difference.

Issues to consider when choosing AI software

I’ll discuss below the second and third categories and provide notable examples of initiatives and tools that rely on AI to expand access to justice—whether by enabling lawyers to better represent underserved populations or making legal information more accessible and understandable for unrepresented litigants.

Before we dive in, important factors to keep in mind when choosing AI tools for your legal organization include understanding that you’ll be entrusting confidential information to a third party because AI software is typically cloud-based. This means that you have an ethical obligation to thoroughly vet the technology provider by obtaining information on how the data will be handled by that company; where the servers on which the data will be stored are located; who will have access to it; and how often and when it will be backed up, among other things.

Because the software includes AI features, you’ll also want to explore issues that include accuracy rates, how the company protects your data, and whether your team’s data inputs are used to train AI models to improve responses.

Tools for public interest organizations

One way to ensure access to justice is to equip legal professionals who devote their careers to underserved populations with tools that will make their work easier and more effective. AI software companies have approached this aspirational goal in two very different ways.

First, a number of companies have developed AI-powered tools designed to meet the needs and budgets of legal services providers who represent underserved populations. The products address a variety of pain points, with each tool helping to reduce the challenges encountered by legal professionals juggling high caseloads. Notable examples include:

  • LawDroid Copilot: A generative AI assistant with pricing starting at $19 per user per month; it can conduct legal research, draft and summarize documents and correspondence, and analyze motions.
  • JusticeText: A software platform designed to help public defenders and criminal defense attorneys analyze and transcribe video and audio evidence.
  • Descrybe.ai: A free generative AI search engine available in English and Spanish with a database of caselaw from more than 3 million state and federal judicial opinions.

Simultaneously, initiatives such as Thomson Reuters’ AI for Justice Legal Aid program and Everlaw for Good are helping bridge the access-to-justice gap by providing legal aid organizations and nonprofits with cost-effective access to advanced AI tools.

Programs such as these offer subsidized or free access to software that can significantly enhance efficiency. By equipping legal professionals with tools to streamline tasks such as research, drafting and evidence review, these initiatives enable nonprofits and pro bono programs to expand their representation of underserved populations while reducing costs and maximizing impact.

AI-powered tools for legal consumers

Another way to tackle access-to-justice challenges is to provide legal consumers with tools that provide legal information and possibly even assist them in solving their legal issues without needing to retain an attorney. Certain legal matters are simple enough that people may be able to effectively represent their interests in court if assisted by AI tools designed for their needs.

For example, the tools below were developed to aid underserved communities by providing user-friendly platforms that leverage AI technology to simplify complex legal processes. These platforms provide clear and accessible information, enabling people to take actionable steps in resolving their issues. By reducing barriers to understanding and navigating the legal system, these innovations help bridge the access-to-justice gap for those who might otherwise struggle to afford or access traditional legal services. Examples include:

  • Beagle+: A contract analysis tool that uses AI to simplify the review and interpretation of complex legal agreements.
  • Hello Divorce: A platform designed to streamline the divorce process, offering self-help tools, legal education and optional access to attorneys.
  • JustFix: A tenant-focused app that helps renters document housing issues and take action against landlords violating their rights.

Generative AI chatbots are also emerging as powerful tools that help courts and legal aid organizations bridge the access-to-justice gap. These tools use conversational AI to provide self-represented litigants with easy access to legal information, procedural guidance and court resources tailored to their needs.

By automating routine interactions and simplifying complex legal processes, these chatbots reduce court staff’s administrative burdens while empowering people to navigate the legal system more effectively.

Here are some examples of generative AI-powered chatbots currently in use by courts and public interest organizations:

  • Legal Information Assistant: A generative AI chatbot offered by Legal Aid of North Carolina that provides answers to legal questions in English and Spanish.
  • Nevada Supreme Court’s AI chatbot: This generative AI tool offers legal guidance in multiple languages, helping people understand their legal options and procedural steps.
  • Missouri Tenant Help: This online screening tool helps Missouri tenants determine eligibility for legal assistance before connecting with program staff.
  • SANDI (Self-Help Assistant Navigator for Digital Interactions): A chatbot on the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida’s website that provides AI-powered assistance to people navigating the legal system.
  • Rentervention: An AI virtual assistant launched by the Law Center for Better Housing, the Illinois Equal Justice Foundation and the Lawyers Trust Fund of Illinois that helps tenants in Illinois access information and resources on housing rights.
  • Roxanne: An AI-powered tool designed to assist tenants in addressing housing repair issues effectively in New York.

AI technology holds tremendous potential to reduce the access-to-justice gap by empowering legal professionals and the public with innovative tools and resources. The software discussed above reflects a growing commitment to developing AI for social good despite challenges that include data security, ethical considerations and lack of profitability.

Whether these tools will fully live up to expectations remains to be seen even as current initiatives offer a promising glimpse of what might be possible. Only the passage of time will tell whether AI will ultimately deliver on its potential to make justice more accessible for those who truly need it.

However, as AI-powered solutions continue to evolve, their potential to bridge the access-to-justice gap grows stronger—offering hope that technology can play a meaningful role in delivering legal support to those who need it most.

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York-based attorney, author and journalist, and she is the principal legal insight strategist at MyCase, a company that offers legal practice management software for small firms. She is the nationally recognized author of Cloud Computing for Lawyers and is co-author of Social Media for Lawyers: The Next Frontier, both published by the American Bar Association. She writes regular columns for ABAJournal.com and Above the Law, has authored hundreds of articles for other publications, and regularly speaks at conferences regarding the intersection of law and emerging technologies. Follow her on X (formerly Twitter) @nikiblack, or she can be reached at [email protected].

This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.





Source link

BigLaw firm took several pages from ‘Retaliating Employer’s Handbook,’ suit alleges

by | Jan 23, 2025 | Law


  1. Home
  2. Daily News
  3. BigLaw firm took several pages from ‘Retaliating…

Law Firms

BigLaw firm took several pages from ‘Retaliating Employer’s Handbook,’ suit alleges

By Debra Cassens Weiss

A counsel at Davis Wright Tremaine in Seattle has filed a retaliation lawsuit against the law firm and several partners, including one defendant who moved into the plaintiff’s Seattle apartment building—allegedly on the firm’s dime. (Image from Shutterstock)

Updated: A counsel at Davis Wright Tremaine in Seattle has filed a retaliation lawsuit against the law firm and several partners, including one defendant who moved into the plaintiff’s Seattle apartment building—allegedly on the firm’s dime.

Lawyer Arthur A. Simpson alleges in his pro se Jan. 9 suit that Davis Wright and several partners “have taken numerous pages straight from the time-tested Retaliating Employer’s Handbook.”

Law360 has the story and provides a link to the complaint, filed in state court in King County, Washington.

The retaliation began, the suit says, after Simpson complained about one partner in 2022 for allegedly asking him to perform actions that he opposed. The partner later moved into Simpson’s apartment building while he was on medical leave to recover from the stress that she had caused, resulting in additional “stress, anxiety, depression, fear and upset” for Simpson.

Simpson’s complaints about the partner were “summarily” rejected, and he was told that he had the option of resigning with a “paltry severance package” or working only remotely, according to the suit. The ultimatum was based on the “utterly false and defamatory” proposition that Simpson posed a safety threat to his colleagues, the suit says.

The firm’s demands were dropped, but “as a matter of practical reality, Simpson’s prospects at DWT were cooked,” the suit says.

Simpson agreed to a “truce” that included a medical leave of absence and returned to work in November 2022. But the firm “never intended to let bygones be bygones” and began to manipulate his performance reviews, the suit says. He was told in his 2023 performance review that he should leave the firm—and soon.

But Simpson “was determined he would not be unlawfully bullied out of the firm,” and he “made his best efforts on behalf of the firm’s clients every day.”

More recently, the suit says, Simpson experienced post-traumatic stress disorder after he was chased by a homeless person with a crowbar while he was walking his dog. Simpson drew a licensed handgun but did not shoot. He reported the attack to the firm, but his colleagues refused to discuss the issue with him.

“As anybody who has been to junior high school knows, it is emotionally painful to receive the ‘cold shoulder’ from one’s peer group,” Simpson wrote. “And the experience is not much better as an adult.”

Rather than checking in with Simpson, the suit says, Davis Wright managers “cranked up his responsibilities until he was suddenly billing more hours than at any prior time in his career.” At the same time, the managers were conducting a behind-the-scenes investigation into “whether he was sending grumpy emails to his opposing counsel,” the suit says.

“After two-and-a-half years of sustained retaliation against Simpson, he finally ran out of steam and had to take another medical leave of absence” starting in November 2024, the suit says.

The suit alleges retaliation, disability discrimination, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation failure to pay a bonus for which he qualified and civil conspiracy.

Davis Wright provided a statement to Law360 that called Simpson’s allegations “baseless.”

A spokesperson for the firm provided this statement to the ABA Journal: “We have worked extensively to support Mr. Simpson over his tenure with the firm. We regret that he has chosen to engage in this litigation and now attempt to try his case in the press. We will vigorously defend against his baseless allegations.”

Updated Jan. 23 at 1:59 p.m. to add the statement from the Davis Wright Tremaine spokesperson.





Source link

Bar associations could be targeted, Trump DEI order says, spurring response from 2 of them

by | Jan 23, 2025 | Law


  1. Home
  2. Daily News
  3. Bar associations could be targeted, Trump…

Bar Associations

Bar associations could be targeted, Trump DEI order says, spurring response from 2 of them

By Debra Cassens Weiss

Bar associations could be targeted for investigation under President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end “illegal preferences and discrimination” in government and the private sector. (Image from Shutterstock)

Bar associations could be targeted for investigation under President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end “illegal preferences and discrimination” in government and the private sector.

The order issued Tuesday called for federal agencies to identify up to nine entities for possible civil compliance investigations, including large nonprofits and state and local bar associations.

The order declared that “influential institutions of American society” are using “dangerous, demeaning and immoral race- and sex-based preferences under the guise of so-called ‘diversity, equity and inclusion’ (DEI) or ‘diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility’ (DEIA) that can violate the civil rights laws of this nation.”

Reuters has the story on the response from two state bar associations.

The State Bar of California said its programs won’t be affected because “none of our work in this space involves illegal discrimination or preferences.”

Victoria Santoro, president of the Massachusetts Bar Association, also said the state bar is not breaking the law.

“I think there are better ways our federal government could use its time than looking at bar associations,” Santoro added.

The American Bar Association is not commenting at this time, a spokesperson told the ABA Journal.

The ABA’s Goal III calls for eliminating bias and enhancing diversity by promoting full and equal participation in the association, the legal profession and the justice system. Over the last few years, these ABA diversity programs and policies have come under scrutiny:

  • The ABA section that is recognized as the accrediting group for JD programs has been wrangling with changes to its diversity standard for law schools. As currently written, Standard 206 says law schools “shall demonstrate by concrete action” a commitment to having a student body, faculty and staff who are “diverse with respect to gender, race and ethnicity.” The section decided to revise the standard following a June 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down race-conscious admissions programs at universities.

The latest proposed revision under consideration by the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar requires a commitment to diversity for all people, including listed members of historically disadvantaged groups.

The wording change didn’t satisfy 21 attorneys general in Republican-controlled states, who warned that it “appears to perpetuate unlawful racial discrimination.”

  • At least nine ABA diversity programs were targeted by the conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty in a civil rights complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Justice in May 2024. The ABA’s general counsel, Annaliese Fleming, said at the time the ABA programs are lawful. and the allegations are “factually and legally incorrect.”

In October 2024, the ABA updated its description of one targeted program—its judicial clerkship program—because some language “did not accurately reflect the operation of the program,” Fleming said in a statement explaining the change. The program introduces law students from diverse backgrounds to judges and law clerks.

  • The ABA changed its diversity policy for continuing legal education programs that it sponsors after the Florida Supreme Court banned course credit in the state for programs with panel “quotas.” The old ABA policy had numerical requirements for diverse panelists; the new policy says CLE organizers “will invite and include” moderators and faculty members to create panels to meet Goal III objectives.





Source link

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the cornerstones of democracy

by | Jan 23, 2025 | Law



By Michael E. Flowers

The American Bar Association’s Cornerstones of Democracy Commission, on which I am privileged to serve, encourages the legal profession to lead the way in promoting civics, civility and collaboration—the cornerstones of American democracy—to restore confidence in democratic institutions and the judicial system, and to promote the rule of law.

As we examine the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., we can see Dr. King employing these three cornerstones of democracy as he challenged our nation to live up to its ideals.

First, Dr. King mastered the initial cornerstone of democracy which is civics. Dr. King had a clear understanding of how the three branches of our government worked, and how the separation of powers provided the necessary checks and balances needed for a diverse, stable and just society.

Dr. King knew that our constitutional democracy had the ability to deliver justice for every citizen. What was lacking was the willingness of those empowered to control our government to have it work for the mutual benefit of all citizens. For that reason, Dr. King met with Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon, as leaders of the executive branch, to make sure our nation’s civil rights agenda was also a presidential priority.

Dr. King also met with congressional leaders in order to work with them to fashion the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the 1968 Fair Housing Act that, in combination, eliminated many of the significant barriers to full and free participation in our society by women, people of color and other underrepresented groups in our nation.

Dr. King also enlisted the third branch of our government, the federal judiciary. With the help of talented lawyers such as future U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, Dr. King petitioned our federal courts to strike down laws that denied equal treatment to all citizens.

Dr. King was also very skilled at deploying the second cornerstone of democracy, which is collaboration. While Dr. King was the head of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, in many respects the SCLC was a loose confederation of churches and other organizations dedicated to ending government sanctioned segregation and discrimination. Many of these other organizations had their own view of how to proceed. Fortunately, Dr. King was able to find the common ground around which all of these distinct groups were able to coalesce and collaborate.

And then there is the third cornerstone of democracy, which is civility. In the face of vicious and false accusations, Dr. King did not respond in kind. He made the conscious decision to remain peaceful in his conduct and in his rhetoric. This decision prevented the messages of the civil rights community from being transformed into shouting matches. Instead, by conducting himself at all times in a respectful and civil manner, Dr. King was able to nullify the vitriol that was directed at him by those who opposed equal treatment for all citizens under the law.

As Dr. King harnessed the power of our cornerstones of democracy to advance a national civil rights movement, I am confident we can attack other social problems using these same tools.

Robust civics education, focused collaboration and intentional civility: These three cornerstones of our democracy can also be marshaled to address other major societal problems. On that list of other major societal problems, I would include the following three areas that need urgent attention.

First is homelessness and the lack of affordable housing. Second is gun violence in our schools, in our places of worship and on the streets of our communities. And third is poverty and the lack of economic opportunity. A renewed emphasis on the three cornerstones of our democracy will allow us to mobilize to address these burdens on our society.

The opening line of our U.S. Constitution begins with the words, “We the people.” For over 200 years, we the people have endeavored to make the promises of our constitution available to all by doing these three things: (1) Making sure each successive generation received the necessary civics education to effectively engage our system of governance; (2) Making sure we understood that by collaborating we could achieve the common good without sacrificing the rights of any group; and (3) At all times remembering our fellow citizens are our neighbors and not our enemies, and therefore we should treat them in a respectful and civil manner.

As we begin this new year, this is a time for action. We have the three cornerstones of democracy available for our use to meet the challenges of our time.

Dr. King showed us how to use these tools to bring about significant positive social change. Now it is our turn to do the same.

Michael E. Flowers is a member of Steptoe & Johnson, where he practices general corporate and commercial real estate law within the law firm’s business law department. He is also the firm’s director of diversity and inclusion. Flowers also is a former chair of the ABA Business Law Section and a former member of the ABA Board of Governors. He currently serves as a member of the ABA Cornerstones of Democracy Commission and as a member of ABA House of Delegates.

ABAJournal.com is accepting queries for original, thoughtful, nonpromotional articles and commentary by unpaid contributors to run in the Your Voice section. Details and submission guidelines are posted at “Your Submissions, Your Voice.”

This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.





Source link