header-logo header-logo

07 February 2008
Issue: 7307 / Categories: Legal News , Legal services , Procedure & practice , Profession
printer mail-detail

Uncertain year ahead for law firms

Legal Services

Law firms face a rocky year thanks to economic uncertainty and a drop in business confidence, a survey of the UK’s top 100 firms shows. The research, carried out for accountancy firm, Smith & Williamson, shows firms face increased pressure on costs and flatter income levels. Giles Murphy, head of assurance and business services at Smith & Williamson, says that while the overall outlook for law firms remains healthy, the market seems to have peaked.

“Many practices are grappling with increasing costs as they have had to ramp up salaries to get the people they need while also dealing with rising property costs. At the same time, income levels are flattening. Although the percentage changes for costs and revenue may be quite small, the combination of the two can have dramatic implications for profits.” He says practices relying on merger and acquisition and transaction work look most vulnerable, while those focusing on litigation, private client, arbitration or insolvency will fare better.

The trend towards increased consolidation is apparently continuing, with a third of firms questioned scrambling to find other firms to hook up with. Murphy says: “The main motivating factors are to forge links with a firm with complementary areas of activity, to grow the client base, and as a means to develop specific sectors.” The need to recruit and retain quality staff was cited as an area of concern by over half of participants. “The problem is primarily a lack of talented people rather than the lack of numbers, and this pressure on recruitment tends to force up payroll overheads. For those firms who have been investing in new talent, the economic uncertainty could not have come at a worse time,” says Murphy.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll