Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Ask yourself whether the following scenario is fact or fiction in today's U.S. legal market. A large investment firm with $3 billion in assets acquires a U.S. plaintiffs' personal injury law firm after the law firm is listed on the U.S. Stock Exchange. Founded in 1935, the law firm specializes in workers' compensation claims, personal injury cases and class actions. The investment fund's acquisition of the law firm provides the law firm with "a stable capital base and a supportive operating environment," according to the law firm's press release. The fund "looks forward to working with [the law firm's] strong team of lawyers whom we are keen to retain, support and incentivize," according to the fund. The scenario is fact, not fiction. But it's a scenario that happened earlier this year in Australia with Australian law firm Slater Gordon, not in the United States. At least, not yet.
Surely, this nightmare scenario of hedge funds or other non-lawyer entities owning and controlling law firms could never happen in the United States. Don't be so sure. Powerful forces are now pushing regulators in the direction of non-lawyer ownership of law firms in the United States. Some of the forces are completely well-intentioned, but some of the forces are not so well-intentioned. The well-intentioned forces are motivated primarily by access to justice considerations. The not so well-intentioned forces are motivated primarily by crass financial considerations. The parties motivated by financial considerations include hedge funds, accounting firms, insurance companies and corporations seeking cheaper legal services, among others.
There is no legitimate question at all that the access-to-justice needs of low-income Americans are not being met. In one study, America ranked 30 out of 126 countries in meeting the access-to-justice needs of its citizens, tied with Poland and Romania. The only legitimate question is how to bridge the gap between access-to-justice needs and the availability of affordable legal services to meet those needs.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
End of year collections are crucial for law firms because they allow them to maximize their revenue for the year, impacting profitability, partner distributions and bonus calculations by ensuring outstanding invoices are paid before the year closes, which is especially important for meeting financial targets and managing cash flow throughout the firm.
Law firms and companies in the professional services space must recognize that clients are conducting extensive online research before making contact. Prospective buyers are no longer waiting for meetings with partners or business development professionals to understand the firm's offerings. Instead, they are seeking out information on their own, and they want to do it quickly and efficiently.
Through a balanced approach that combines incentives with accountability, firms can navigate the complexities of returning to the office while maintaining productivity and morale.
The paradigm of legal administrative support within law firms has undergone a remarkable transformation over the last decade. But this begs the question: are the changes to administrative support successful, and do law firms feel they are sufficiently prepared to meet future business needs?
Counsel should include in its analysis of a case the taxability of the anticipated and sought after damages as the tax effect could be substantial.