Intellectual property firm Kenyon & Kenyon neither confirmed nor denied rumors that they will be canceling their summer associate program, the ABA Journal reports.  The firm said in a statement that while they “have not officially cancelled [their] summer associate program,” they “cannot say with any certainty there will be a summer program at this time,” (as quoted in the ABA Journal).  Although the firm has not yet rescinded their offers to summer associates, they told them that they understand if they “may feel the need to explore other opportunities.”

AmLaw Daily reported in October that the IP giant lost 16.4 percent of their attorneys in 2015 and “watched a steady stream of partners head for the door.”

In a profession “less diverse than doctors or engineers [who are] 88 percent white,” says Danielle Holley-Walker, dean of Howard University Law, the legal community is still struggling with diversity (as quoted in the ABA Journal).  In fact, the recently released Vault/MCCA Law Firm Diversity Survey found that out of 250 law firms, an overwhelming 84 percent of attorneys self-identify as white/Caucasian, with only 3 percent identifying as African-American, 6 percent as Asian-American, and another 3 percent as Hispanic/Latino.  The report also concluded that while the recruitment of minorities has slightly increased, the attrition of these minority attorneys is still occurring at a disproportionate rate.

Perhaps even more alarming is the ‘double jeopardy’ plight of minority women in law.  The ABA Journal reported in their March issue headliner that an astounding 85-percent of U.S. minority female attorneys will quit their large firms within seven years of starting their practice.  And, minority racial status aside, “women account for only 18 percent of equity partners in the Am Law 200 and earn 80 percent of what their male counterparts do for comparable work, hours, and revenue generation,” reported the 2015 survey by the National Association of Women Lawyers (as quoted in the ABA Journal).  Add race back in to find that minority women accounted for a mere 2.55 percent of partners in 2015, rendering them the “most dramatically underrepresented group at the partnership level, a pattern [holding] across all firm sizes and most jurisdictions,” (NALP, as reported by the ABA Journal).

So, in light of the many disturbing statistics, what can and are law firms doing today to help bridge the inequality gap?  Howard law dean Holley-Walker suggests that young minority lawyers should make an extra effort to build relationships with partners, who serve to not only mentor them now, but eventually to act as a sponsor, ready to “go to bat” for the younger attorney (as quoted in the ABA Journal).

And it appears that some firms are already going the extra mile.  Above the Law released the results of their 2016 Law Firm Gender Diversity Index, which classified over 200,000 attorneys and assigned grades based on each firm’s gender diversity statistics.  Milwaukee-based Quarles & Brady stood out in the top six of all firms, and was awarded an A+.

In-house attorneys have always extolled the abolishment of the billable hour as a major plus over traditional firm life.  But now, The American Lawyer reports that the time sheet “seems to be gaining popularity with in-house lawyers,” many who have begun using the it as a way to prove their worth to their employers.

Stephen Kaplan, general counsel and executive vice president of XOS Digital, is a strong proponent of the time sheet, having started tracking his own hours over a decade ago.  Kaplan notes that “the legal department is one of the only departments in companies that, without tracking hours, has difficulty coming up with the metrics that prove the company’s return on investment is worthwhile”–metrics that, since the recession, have become “increasingly important in the eyes of chief financial officers,” (as quoted in The American Lawyer).  Kaplan further points out that the job of every CFO today is to “ask the hard question of every single member of every single company: Why are you here?”

Although in-house attorneys, as non-income generators for the company, may have the most to gain from using time sheets to prove their value, some companies are now requiring all departments to report billable hours for clients.  Adam Rubin, general counsel for PrizeLogic, says that tracking hours is standard at his company, and observes that “this is a trend, not just for lawyers, but for all employees,” (as quoted in The American Lawyer).

Of course, many attorneys still feel that tracking billable hours is a unnecessary and time-consuming burden.  Rubin argues that basing the worth of an in-house lawyer solely on the hours worked means that “you’re missing out on a more important analysis of the employee,” (The American Lawyer).

Kaplan concedes that tracking time may not be necessary if “you are naturally very organized or if you work in a department where your value has never been called into question,” but concludes, “How many of us are in an environment that checks both of those boxes?”

Last year saw the dissolution of several high-profile firm mergers, yet still boasted a record 91 successful law firm amalgamations (Altman Weil).  However, closely following the recent termination of merger talks between Greenberg Traurig and London’s Berwin Leighton Paisner, consultancy Gulland Padfield released the results of a study claiming that the “majority of law firm mergers fail to deliver benefits to clients and risk damaging partnership value,” (as reported by The American Lawyer).

James Edsberg, a partner at Gulland Padfield, says that while mergers can be “genuinely transformational…the majority of the law firms only do it if they absolutely have to,” (as quoted in The American Lawyer).  The report found that many mergers fail because of the “lack of a coherent plan to capitalize on the combined client relationships,” being instead too focused on the purely operational aspects of the integration (The American Lawyer).  Edsberg adds that the “litmus test of any merger should be whether the combined firm can bring value to clients in a way that the old firms couldn’t on their own,” (as quoted in The American Lawyer).

Read more on the report and see the indicators of a good merger here.

Schiff Hardin laid off seven current associates and retracted offers for four incoming associates yesterday, reports the ABA Journal.  This comes after the widely publicized mass exodus of 22 partners in January, which included Schiff’s former managing partner.

Schiff isn’t the only big law firm that’s conducted massive layoffs this year.  Reed Smith and Baker Donelson have also cut large numbers of attorneys and support staff in the recent months.  In January, Reed Smith, the 19th highest-grossing law firm in the U.S. last year, laid off 45 attorneys and an unspecified number of staff, announced the Wall Street Journal.

Schiff Hardin managing partner Marci Eisenstein said in her statement that, despite the layoffs, the firm is “coming off a record year,” and are anticipating “another strong year in 2016,” (as reported by Above the Law).

Baker and McKenzie retains its title as the best-known law firm in the world, according recent rankings by UK-based research firm Acritas.  However, although the “sun never sets on Baker & McKenzie’s empire,” reports The American Lawyer, “challengers continue to make progress against established, old-line firms in the minds of senior counsel at big corporations.”

Chief executive of Acritas, Lisa Hart Shepherd, observes that they are “continuing to see a decline, in the brand sense, of premium-priced brands,” but notes that global brand awareness is not easy to build in today’s increasingly fragmented market, where the average client works with 12 firms (as quoted in The American Lawyer).

If possible, however, corporate clients tend to favor sticking with their current domestic firms for any international work, said Shepherd.   She adds that “once attention is won,” firms can keep such clients through “the promise of a great client experience and, for much of the work, good value” (as quoted in The American Lawyer).

Mary Young, a consultant at the Zeughauser Group, is quoted by The American Lawyer as advising any law firm trying to enter new markets to consider “what you can offer that others can’t, or what relationships you can leverage that others cannot.”

The Acritas surveys also found that many companies coveted more business-savvy firms–one client explaining that it gives the firm a competitive edge by being able to have a better understanding of potential risks and gains.

Read the full article at The American Lawyer.

BTI Consulting recently analyzed over 300 law firms to identify the key characteristics shared by the most profitable law firms, observing that while “rates can help…the outsized profits come from behaviors, strategies, and culture.”

On the client side, these behaviors include concentrating the firm’s focus in certain practice areas or industries, targeting clients that tend to have a continuous stream of work, and proactively engaging with and discussing the clients’ business, even before active matters arise.

BTI also found that the most profitable firms encourage socialization among partners, in order to create a collegial environment that encourages cross-selling and collaboration for increased business development.  They conclude that “the more you can push the behaviors and strategy into the culture–the better your profits.”

See the other habits and read more here.

Managing partner of Akerman’s Chicago office, Scott Meyers, sat down with Crain’s to discuss the firm’s growth strategy.

Akerman, a mid-sized, full-service firm based out of Miami, opened their Chicago office two years ago with eight lawyers, which has since grown a team of 45 attorneys.

Meyers tells Crain’s that he “never imagined [they] would be able to grow as quickly as [they] have,” but says that they won’t put a goal date on their plan of doubling in size.  He explains that they are “optimistic enough” that they will “find enough wedge into the market” (as quoted in Crain’s).

Meyers points out that Akerman has managed to accomplish the same goal in New York, where their office has grown to nearly one hundred attorneys.  “As I always tell my litigators,” he adds, “don’t tell people when you can show people” (as quoted in Crain’s).

The “vast majority” of lawyers and staff from Houston-based IP boutique Novack Druce Connolly Bove & Quigg will be absorbed into the fast-growing Polsinelli, according to recent reports by The American Lawyer.

Polsinelli chairman and CEO Russell Welsh told The American Lawyer that acquisition by Polsinelli, which currently has just over 700 attorneys, will enhance their already “robust IP practice,” especially in the burgeoning area of post-grant patent reviews (as quoted in The American Lawyer).

Novak Druce, which had 140 attorneys in 2012, has been losing “a stream of partners to competitors,” The American Lawyer reports, including Drinker Biddle, Reed Smith, and Dykema Gossett.  This mirrors the ongoing trend for intellectual property boutiques in the recent years, many of which have been struggling and have since been absorbed into or have had partners taken by mid-sized, full-service firms like Polsinelli.

Ranked the fast-growing firm for the seventh year in the row, Polsinelli has experienced continued success in their expansion efforts, with revenue rising 11.4 percent in 2015 (The American Lawyer).  Their now-proven strategy is to concentrate growth in low overhead markets in order to compete for health care work and other “price-sensitive assignments.”  Todd Dickinson of Novack Druce’s executive committee agrees with their method, telling The American Lawyer that Polsinelli utilizes a “Midwest sensibility about rates that’s client friendly.”