1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Law firms had ‘very strong performance’ financially…

Law Firms

Law firms had ‘very strong performance’ financially at 9-month point, new report says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

November 20, 2024, 12:22 pm CST

Law firm revenue in the first nine months of 2024 increased 12.8% from the same period last year, thanks mostly to increases in standard billing rates, according to a new report by Wells Fargo’s Legal Specialty Group.

At this same point last year, revenue had increased 4.6%, according to the report. The year-over-year revenue growth of 12.8% in the first three quarters was eclipsed only by growth rates of 14.4% in 2021.

“For the first nine months of 2024,” the report says, “the law firm industry experienced very strong performance, improving upon the momentum seen at the six-month mark.”

Revenue growth was highest for Am Law 50 firms, which are ranked based on gross revenue. They had year-over-year revenue growth of 14.6% at the nine-month point, compared to growth of 9.3% for firms in the Am Law Second Fifty and 10.1% for firms in the Am Law Second Hundred.

The “primary contributor” to revenue growth is the increase in billing rates, according to the report. Standard billing rates increased 9% from the same period last year. The year-over-year increase was 10% for Am Law 50 firms and 7% for Am Law Second Fifty and Am Law Second Hundred firms.

Net income is also up, Wells Fargo says, although the bank cautions that percentage increases can be “unusually large” in interim reporting because of the seasonality of collections and cash basis reporting. Net income increased 22.2% in the first nine months of the year, compared to the same period last year, while profits per equity partner increased 21.5%.

Law.com spoke with Owen Burman, a senior consultant for the Wells Fargo’s Legal Specialty Group, about the findings.

Financial growth is going so well that firms are “pinching themselves,” Burman said.

The report is based on information from more than 130 firms, including 70 Am Law 100 firms and 35 Am Law Second Hundred firms.

POINT ARENA, Calif. — The Bureau of Land Management, Ukiah Field Office, plans to conduct prescribed fire operations in the Point Arena – Stornetta Unit of the California Coastal National Monument in Mendocino County. Pile-burn operations could start as soon as Oct. 1, and may continue periodically through the fall, winter and spring. Prescribed fire operations will take place only when weather and fuel moistures allow for safe and successful burning.

The BLM Ukiah Field Office has been conducting hazardous tree felling and conifer abatement treatments in the unit since 2021.

“The BLM is committed to keeping public landscapes healthy and productive; pile burning is the next step in the progression of treatments that are designed to provide for public safety, reduce hazardous fuels for wildfire, and restore areas of coastal prairie from conifer encroachment,” said California Coastal National Monument Manager Leisyka Parrott.

Situated along the rugged Mendocino County coastline adjacent to the town of Point Arena, the Point Arena-Stornetta unit offers spectacular views of coastal bluffs, sea arches, the estuary of the Garcia River, and sandy beaches and dunes with eight miles of paths. More information is available from the BLM Ukiah Field Office at 707-468-4000. Updates will be provided by the BLM through the BLM California Fire Information Facebook and Twitter.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Taking ‘legal long shot,’ Trump’s lawyers…

Constitutional Law

Taking ‘legal long shot,’ Trump’s lawyers point to impeachment judgment clause in immunity argument

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 2, 2024, 2:16 pm CST

Lawyers for former President Donald Trump are taking their immunity argument to a federal appeals court after the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 22 rejected a request by special counsel Jack Smith to grant certiorari before judgment to quickly decide the issue.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will hear arguments in the case next week, the New York Times reports. At issue is whether Trump is immune from Smith’s election-interference prosecution because it is based on actions that Trump took while in office.

Part of the lawyers’ argument focuses on the impeachment judgment clause, which says impeached parties who are convicted in the U.S. Senate can still be criminally prosecuted, according to the New York Times.

The impeachment judgment clause reads: “Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States. But the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.”

Trump was acquitted in his Senate impeachment trial for allegedly inciting the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riot.

In a “legal long shot” argument, Trump’s lawyers contend that the clause “presupposes that a president who is not convicted may not be subject to criminal prosecution,” the New York Times says.

In a “slightly narrower but still audacious argument,” the lawyers argue that a president who is acquitted by the Senate can’t be prosecuted for the acquitted conduct, the New York Times reports.

Smith argued in his brief that the impeachment judgment clause constrains sanctions available to Congress but places no limits on post-impeachment criminal prosecution.

An acquittal in an impeachment trial isn’t necessarily based on a factual conclusion that the impeached party did not commit impeachment offenses, Smith said. He pointed to statements by at least 31 of the 43 senators who voted to acquit Trump that their vote was at least partly due to the fact that Trump was already out of office, and they didn’t think that there was jurisdiction for the trial.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan of Washington, D.C., had ruled against Trump on the immunity issue Dec. 1.

“Nothing in the impeachment judgment clause prevents criminal prosecution thereafter,” she wrote.

How Appealing linked to the brief for Trump and additional coverage, while the National Law Journal covered the Supreme Court’s rejection of Smith’s petition for certiorari before judgment.

See also:

“Federal appeals court narrows federal judge’s gag order in Trump election-interference case”

“As 1 judge temporarily lifts Trump gag order, another says he’s ‘way beyond’ warning stage”

“Trump’s election-subversion co-conspirators included DOJ official, 4 other lawyers, indictment says”

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. ‘Intriguing point’ in Trump SCOTUS brief…

Constitutional Law

‘Intriguing point’ in Trump SCOTUS brief could mean his vice president would replace him after an election win

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 4, 2024, 11:28 am CST

In U.S. Supreme Court briefs seeking ballot access, former President Donald Trump and his former U.S. solicitor general are making an argument that could lead to a vice presidential candidate becoming president, according to Jeannie Suk Gersen, a Harvard Law School professor.

Trump’s argument is in his cert petition, filed Wednesday, which asks the Supreme Court to overturn a Colorado Supreme Court ruling that bans him from the primary ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The provision bars people from holding U.S. office if they engaged in insurrection or rebellion after taking an oath “to support the Constitution of the United States.”

Trump’s focus on the disqualification clause in Section 3 raises an “intriguing point,” according to Gersen’s Daily Comment article for the New Yorker. At issue is a sentence in Section 3 that reads, “But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

According to Gersen, Trump’s argument is that the clause is about holding office, and it doesn’t prevent anyone, even an insurrectionist, from running or being elected to office because it is always possible that Congress will vote to allow the person to hold office.

The argument is “the centerpiece” of an amicus brief also filed Wednesday on behalf of the National Republican Senatorial Committee and its chair, Gersen said.

Partly written by Noel Francisco, former solicitor general in the Trump administration, the brief argues that, whether or not Section 3 applies, “it unquestionably does not allow Colorado to exclude President Trump from the ballot.” Section 3 bars disqualified people from serving in office but not from running, the brief argues.

The Colorado Supreme Court “effectively usurped Congress’ sole authority to decide when, if at all, to remove any Section 3 disqualification,” the brief argues.

That means that Trump can still run and seek removal of the disqualification, if there is one. What happens after a win and before a qualification vote is governed by the 20th Amendment, which says the vice president must serve as acting president until the president is qualified, the brief says.

“But, of course, there is no guarantee that if Trump is elected in November, Congress will lift his disqualification,” Gersen wrote, “especially because Congress is unlikely to reach the high bar of two-thirds of each house that is needed to do so. That implies that voters who believe that Trump is disqualified as an insurrectionist have the ability to elect him expecting that his running mate will be president, possibly throughout the four-year term.”

See also:

“GOP can put Trump on primary ballot, even if he is ineligible for office, top Minnesota court rules”

“Why Colorado judge kept Trump on ballot despite finding he engaged in insurrection”