Bankruptcy filings rose 13.1 percent during the 12-month period ending March 31, 2025. That is a similar rate of acceleration as in the Dec. 31, 2024, quarterly report, but new bankruptcy cases remain significantly lower than after the 2007-08 Great Recession. 

According to statistics released by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, total filings rose to 529,080 cases, compared with 467,774 cases reported during the year ending March 31, 2024.

Business filings increased 14.7 percent, from 20,316 in March 2024 to 23,309 in the newest report. Non-business filings rose 13.0 percent, from 447,458 in March 2024 to 505,771 in March 2025. 

Bankruptcy totals for the previous 12 months are reported four times annually.

For more than a decade, total filings fell steadily, from a high of nearly 1.6 million in September 2010 to a low of 380,634 in June 2022. Total filings have increased each quarter since then, but they remain far lower than historical highs.

Business and Non-Business Filings, Years Ending March 31, 2021-2025

Year	Business	Non-Business	Total
2025	23,309	505,771	529,080
2024	20,316	447,458	467,774
2023	14,467	388,806	403,273
2022	13,160	382,213	395,373
2021	19,911	453,438	473,349

Total Bankruptcy Filings By Chapter, Years Ending March 31, 2021-2025

Year	Chapter
	7	11	12	13
2025	320,571	8,844	259	199,130
2024	271,825	8,036	155	187,539
2023	231,200	5,371	148	166,449
2022	265,071	4,333	228	125,655
2021	345,224	7,823	487	119,502

Additional statistics released today include:

• Business and non-business bankruptcy filings for the 12-month period ending March 31, 2025 (Table F-2, 12-month),
• A comparison of 12-month data ending March 2024 and March 2025 (Table F),
• Filings for the most recent three months, (Table F-2, 3-month); and filings by month (Table F-2, January, February, and March),
• Bankruptcy filings by county (Report F-5A).

For more on bankruptcy and its chapters, view the following resources:

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Some top partners in BigLaw will bill nearly…

Partners

Some top partners in BigLaw will bill nearly $3,000 per hour next year, data says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

September 26, 2024, 12:07 pm CDT

Billing rates for some of the nation’s highest-grossing law firms are expected to continue an upward climb next year.

Some senior partners are expected to bill nearly $3,000 per hour, and a few might top that amount, Law.com reports in a story citing data by Valeo Partners, which analyzes public disclosure documents to discern upcoming rate changes.

Currently, nine firms have standard hourly rates for senior partners that range from about $2,400 to $2,875, according to Chuck Chandler, the CEO of Valeo Partners. Seventeen others will be in that range by 2025, he told Law.com.

Standard billing rates for the nation’s 50 top-grossing firms, however, are expected to be $2,100 for senior partners and $1,900 for other partners.

Valeo Partners didn’t disclose which firms are charging the highest rates for senior partners. Bankruptcy filings reveal, however, that some top partners billed $2,720 per hour this year at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati and billed $2,590 per hour last year at McDermott Will & Emery, according to Law.com.

Bankruptcy filings from 2024 reveal that some senior associates billed $1,575 per hour at Sullivan & Cromwell and $1,560 per hour at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.

Hat tip to Above the Law.

Bankruptcy filings rose 16 percent during the 12-month period ending March 31, 2024. That is a similar rate of acceleration as in the Dec. 31, 2023, quarterly report, but new bankruptcy cases remain significantly lower than before the start of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

According to statistics released by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, total filings rose to 467,774 new cases, compared with 403,273 cases reported during the year ending March 31, 2023.

Business filings increased 40.4 percent, from 14,467 in March 2023 to 20,316 in the newest report. Non-business filings rose 15.1 percent, from 388,806 in March 2023 to 447,458 in March 2024.

This year’s 12-month filing total for the quarter ending March 31 is nearly three-fifths of the total reported in March 2020, when the pandemic disrupted the U.S. economy. That year’s 12-month total was 764,282.

Additional statistics released today include:

• Business and non-business bankruptcy filings for the 12-month period ending March 31, 2024 (Table F-2, 12-month);
• Bankruptcy data for the twelve-month periods ending in March 2023 and March 2024 (Table F);
• Fourth quarter filings, (Table F-2, 3-month); and filings by month (Table F-2, January, February, and March)
• Bankruptcy filings by county (Report F-5A).

Business and Non-Business Filings,
Years Ending
March 31, 2020-2024

Year	Business	Non-Business	Total
2024	20,316	447,458	467,774
2023	14,467	388,806	403,273
2022	13,160	382,213	395,373
2021	19,911	453,438	473,349
2020	23,114	741,168	764,282

Total Bankruptcy Filings By Chapter,
Years Ending
March 31, 2020-2024

Year	Chapter
	7	11	12	13
2024	271,825	8,036	155	187,539
2023	231,200	5,371	148	166,449
2022	265,071	4,333	228	125,655
2021	345,224	7,823	487	119,502
2020	475,279	7,167	638	281,048

For more on bankruptcy and its chapters, view the following resources:

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Which BigLaw firms are increasing lateral…

Law Firms

Which BigLaw firms are increasing lateral associate hiring the most? One made legal headlines last year

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 4, 2024, 11:24 am CDT

As a whole, BigLaw firms have reduced lateral hiring of associates over the last two years, a phenomenon documented in a report by the National Association for Law Placement.

But some high grossing law firms are bucking the trend, Reuters reports in a story that relies on data from legal data intelligence provider Leopard Solutions.

No. 1 for raw numbers in lateral associate hiring is Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, which had to grapple with the loss of 140 lawyers who left to start a new firm last year.

Lewis Brisbois hired 279 lateral associates in 2023, an “uncharacteristically high” number, the firm’s managing partner, Greg Katz, told Reuters columnist Jenna Greene in an email. The firm has also improved its management structure and is bringing on “top talent of every experience level,” Katz said.

Despite the new hires, Lewis Brisbois had 48 fewer associates at the end of 2023 than at the beginning, when there were 659 associates, according to Leopard Solutions, which collected its data from the websites of the nation’s 200 top grossing firms.

But the new firm made up of former Lewis Brisbois lawyers fared much worse. It imploded amid revelations that two of its leaders had sent offensive and derogatory office emails.

Other BigLaw firms increasing lateral associate hiring are Jackson Lewis (which hired 130 lateral associates last year) and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison (which hired 113 lateral associates in 2023).

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. For second year in a row, law firms pull…

Careers

For second year in a row, law firms pull back on lateral hiring of lawyers

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 27, 2024, 11:35 am CDT

Law firms continue to cut back lateral hiring of lawyers following the talent wars of 2021, according to a report by the National Association for Law Placement.

Lateral hiring by firms declined 35% in 2023 following a decrease of 11.5% the prior year, according to a March 27 press release from the NALP and a NALP Bulletin article.

The median number of lawyers hired was 4.0 in 2023, and the average was 9.3 per office or firm, the lowest numbers since 2010.

As the market cooled, there was also a decline in the number of lateral hires allowed to work remotely outside firms’ geographic areas. For lateral partners, the percentage allowed to work remotely was 12%, down from 16.1% in 2022. For associates, the remote percentage was 13.6%, down from 19.3% in 2022.

Lateral hiring is down more for associates than partners. Associate lateral hiring decreased nearly 43% in 2023, following a decline of 20% in 2022. Although associate lateral hiring declined among all sizes of firms, it was most pronounced in firms with more than 1,000 lawyers. In those firms, associate lateral hiring decreased 51%.

Partner lateral hiring only decreased 10% in 2023 after a slight increase of 5.5% in 2022. The decline was due to a 19.1% decline in hiring at firms with 501 to 700 lawyers and a 19.9% decline with firms of more than 1,000 lawyers. At firms of other sizes, lateral hiring of partners increased.

The NALP analysis is based on more than 4,400 lateral hires at 479 firms and offices. Firms were encouraged to report hiring based on individual offices, but some of the data includes firmwide hiring.

Nikia Gray, executive director of the NALP, noted NALP research showing that firms are also making fewer offers for summer associate programs.

The research on summer offers and lower lateral hiring “strongly suggests that law firms are projecting lower client demand over the next few years and readjusting their talent growth strategies as a result,” Gray said in the press release.

I do not recall ever facing a new year with such a sense of trepidation and even fear of what to expect. The presidential election campaign of 2024 promises to be unlike any we have seen in American history, and it seems inevitable that the U.S. Supreme Court will play a large role. And the docket for the current term is filled with major issues about controversial matters, such as abortion, administrative law, gun rights and the First Amendment and social media.

The 2024 presidential election

Even with the election 10 months away, already it is clear that the Supreme Court is going to be involved. On Dec. 19, the Colorado Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, ruled that Donald Trump was disqualified from being on the Republican primary ballot for president because of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. This provision precludes anyone who has previously taken an oath of office from holding public office if they have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the United States. On Dec. 28, the Secretary of State of Maine ruled that Trump was disqualified from being on the ballot in that state. On the other hand, the Minnesota Supreme Court came to an opposite conclusion.

It is important for the United States Supreme Court to take the Colorado case and decide quickly whether Trump is disqualified from being on the ballot. It is urgent that this issue be resolved early and for the entire country before a significant number of primaries. The nightmare would be for the issue to come to the court only after Trump had sewn up the nomination or even worse, after he had been selected as president by the Electoral College.

But this is not the only case coming to the court with implications for the election. Trump faces criminal prosecution in federal court in Washington, D.C., for his efforts to undermine the 2020 election. Trump has claimed that he has absolute immunity from prosecution because it involves actions he took during the time he was president. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled against Trump’s claim of immunity, concluding that his actions were not in carrying out the duties of the presidency. Special Counsel Jack Smith asked the Supreme Court to grant review before the matter was heard by the D.C. Circuit. But on Dec. 22, the court, without opinion, denied this request. The D.C. Circuit will hear oral arguments on Jan. 9, and whatever it decides, it is likely there will be review in the Supreme Court. The crucial question will be whether the court grants expedited review so that the criminal trial can proceed before the November 2024 election.

The court granted review in Fischer v. United States, which involves whether a federal statute, 18 U.S.C. §1512(c), which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations, includes acts unrelated to congressional investigations. Although not the statute used in the Trump prosecution, it is the basis for most of the cases against those involved in the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol.

And, of course, there likely will be many other suits during the election campaign and perhaps after the November election.

Abortion

The Supreme Court has granted review in its first case concerning abortion since overruling Roe v. Wade in 2022. In Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, which has not yet been scheduled for oral arguments, the court will review a 5th Circuit decision that overturned actions of the FDA which made it easier to prescribe mifepristone, a drug used to induce abortions. Although the 5th Circuit overruled a district court decision that would have taken mifepristone entirely off the market, it found that the FDA acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner when it made it easier in 2016 and 2021 to administer the drug.

In 2016, the FDA said that the drug could be used until the 10th week of pregnancy rather than just to the seventh week, reduced the number of required in-person clinical visits from three to one and allowed non-physician health care providers licensed under state law to prescribe and dispense drugs—such as nurse practitioners—to prescribe and dispense mifepristone. It also reduced the dosage from 600 mg to 200 mg.
In 2021, the FDA eliminated the requirement that mifepristone be obtained in person; it was the only drug where there was such a requirement.

It is quite possible the court will not reach the question of the FDA’s authority, instead deciding the case on standing grounds. One of the questions presented is whether the doctors who oppose abortion are injured by the easier availability of mifepristone.

More than half of all abortions in the United States are medically induced using mifepristone. In states that have greatly restricted abortions, including some that have prohibited virtually all abortions since the court overruled Roe v. Wade, medically induced abortions have taken on even greater importance.

Administrative law

This will be an important term for the Roberts court and the administrative state. On Nov. 29, the court heard oral arguments in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, that poses several important issues: Does it violate the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial for a federal agency to impose monetary penalties? Is it an impermissible delegation of powers for Congress to let the agency choose whether to proceed in federal court or in agency proceedings? Is it a violation of separation of powers to have administrative law judges with protection from removal when there are limits on removal of the top agency officials?

On Jan. 17, the court will hear two cases—Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce—about whether it should end Chevron deference, the principle that courts should defer to federal agencies when they interpret the statutes they operate under. These are much anticipated cases about whether the court will overrule Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984), which held that federal courts should give deference to agencies when they are carrying out their authority under federal statutes.

First Amendment and social media

Despite the enormous importance of the internet and social media for freedom of speech, there have been relatively few Supreme Court cases about it. That will change this term, as there are three sets of cases addressing the issue.

On Oct. 31, the court heard oral arguments in O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed. Both involve the question of whether it violates the First Amendment for public officials, with private social media accounts where government business is discussed, to bar critics from access.

In Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton, which have not yet been set for oral arguments, the court will decide the constitutionality of state laws that prohibit internet and social media platforms from engaging in content moderation. The cases involve laws in Florida and Texas respectively. The 11th Circuit struck down the Florida law as violating the First Amendment, while the 5th Circuit upheld the Texas law. The cases have huge significance in terms of the ability of state governments to regulate the internet.

Finally, there are two cases, also not yet set for oral argument, that involve when the speech of government officials is so coercive as to infringe the First Amendment. In Murthy v. Missouri, the 5th Circuit found that the Biden administration violated the First Amendment by encouraging and pressuring social media companies to remove false speech. In National Rifle Association v. Vullo, the court will consider whether Maria Vullo, then the head of New York’s Department of Financial Services, violated the First Amendment when she urged banks and insurance companies to consider the “reputational risks” from doing business with gun-rights groups like the National Rifle Association. In 1963, in Bantam Books v. Sullivan, the court found that threats of prosecution by government officials were coercion that violated the First Amendment. The court has not addressed this since, but it will do so in these two cases.

Guns

On Nov. 7, the court heard oral arguments in United States v. Rahimi, which involves the constitutionality of a federal statute making it a crime for a person under a restraining order in a domestic violence case from having a firearm. The 5th Circuit declared this unconstitutional because such restrictions did not exist in 1791 when the Second Amendment was adopted. Rahimi provides the court the opportunity to clarify the test that it announced in 2022 in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. The decision likely will have great ramifications for many other federal, state and local gun regulations.

In conclusion

In just the last two years, the court has overruled Roe v. Wade, dramatically expanded gun rights, significantly changed the law concerning the religion clauses of the First Amendment, imposed a substantial new limit on administrative agencies (the major questions doctrine), effectively overruled 45 years of precedents allowing universities to engage in affirmative action, and for the first time, found a First Amendment right for businesses to violate anti-discrimination laws when they are engaged in expressive activity. There is every reason to believe that 2024 will be another momentous year for the Supreme Court.

---

Erwin Chemerinsky is dean of the University of California at Berkeley School of Law and author of the newly published book A Momentous Year in the Supreme Court. He is an expert in constitutional law, federal practice, civil rights and civil liberties, and appellate litigation. He’s also the author of The Case Against the Supreme Court; The Religion Clauses: The Case for Separating Church and State, written with Howard Gillman; and Presumed Guilty: How the Supreme Court Empowered the Police and Subverted Civil Rights.

---

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. At least 30 large law firms have announced…

Law Firms

At least 30 large law firms have announced leadership changes in the past year; is burnout to blame?

By Debra Cassens Weiss

December 20, 2023, 8:18 am CST

At least 30 large law firms announced leadership changes in the past year or so, corresponding to a period in which firms are focused on growth.

Law.com addressed reasons for the turnover.

“Some have suggested burnout could be to blame, or that some firms could have delayed leadership changes until after the pandemic, or that a generational transition was in order,” Law.com reports.

“Each firm’s leadership turnover is rooted in different causes, of course, but they all manifest in an era where firms have ‘never been more keenly focused on growth,’” the article reports, citing legal industry analysts.

One leader stepping down is Elliott Portnoy, the CEO at Dentons, who has announced that he plans to relinquish his post when his current term ends in November 2024. He remarked in an interview with Law.com that even one year on the job can seem like several.

“Without sounding too glib, law firm leadership feels a bit like dog years in terms of how they’re measured,” Portnoy said. “In fact, a full year is a pretty long time.”

Other firms recently announcing leadership changes include Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz; Boies Schiller Flexner; Proskauer Rose; Loeb & Loeb; and Norton Rose Fulbright.

Brad Karp, the chair at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, told Law.com earlier this year that he expects that extended terms for firm leaders will decline in popularity because the “burnout risk is too great and the pressures too significant.”

But Brad Hildebrandt, the chair at Hildebrandt Consulting, said he didn’t get the sense that leaders are leaving because of the overwhelming nature of the job. He knows many firm leaders who have decided to step down, he told Law.com.

With few exceptions, “all of these people are retiring or are on term limits. It wasn’t because they were tired or didn’t want to do” the job, Hildebrandt said.