A little over a decade ago, the world of corporate law was in turmoil, and there was no way around the fact that litigation was a growing threat to business.
While there were a handful of companies dedicated to defending their clients, it was increasingly becoming more difficult for lawyers to find the right legal representation for them.
The rise of litigation is no longer a new phenomenon.
It’s been going on for more than a century, but the shift has been slow, and has been driven in large part by the need for new lawyers to get paid, according to a new report from Litigation Management Companies.
The trend, called the “least lawyer” effect, was first observed in the 1970s.
In the years since, litigation has become more common, and the number of lawyers working on litigation matters has more than doubled to more than 10 million.
But in a time of economic turmoil and rising litigation costs, the number and type of lawyers who are looking for work has declined significantly, according the report.
The number of lawsuits being litigated in 2016 was about twice as high as it was in 2013, according TOJO.
This year, the total number of claims against companies rose by about 25 percent, and about half of all lawsuits were filed in California, the report found.
The authors of the report say the least lawyer effect is still occurring in 2016, but its impact is slowing down.
The report, titled “Laws, Laws, Laws: The Largest Change in Lawyers in America Since 1913,” examines the percentage of new attorneys that are pursuing litigation roles over the past decade.
The report notes that the biggest increases in the number who are actively pursuing litigation in the last decade have been among lawyers who started out in their career in business.
The number of active attorneys has more or less plateaued, the authors say, and it has slowed down as litigation has grown.
For instance, lawyers who began in the business of accounting in their early careers in the 1990s now have about a 70 percent chance of becoming lawyers by the time they reach the age of 50, the study found.
They have about one-third of the chance of being lawyers by age 60.
And those who were attorneys in their professional careers when the economy was booming in the early 2000s now are only about one in 10 of the attorneys who started in the industry when the downturn began in 2007, according it.
The law firm of Mayer Brown, which was once a bastion of the least-lawyer trend, has experienced a dramatic increase in litigation clients since the recession.
In 2015, Mayer Brown’s law practice handled about 40 percent of all cases brought against companies.
By 2020, Mayer was handling about 50 percent of the cases brought by firms that were hit hard by the recession and were not paying their legal bills.
And by 2024, Mayer’s lawyers handled roughly 75 percent of cases that were brought against those firms.
By contrast, the lawyers of the law firm Katten Muchin Rosenman, which is famous for its low-cost, high-quality law practice, have seen their rate of litigation growth diminish.
Since the recession, their rate has decreased from a high of 41 percent in 2008 to 26 percent in 2017, the firm reported in a recent earnings report.
Law firms that are still practicing litigation have faced the least competition from other firms, and they have also experienced fewer lawsuits filed against them.
While litigation firms have faced an increase in lawsuits against them, the amount of cases they are able to handle has also decreased.
This has led to lower pay for the attorneys, and higher litigation costs.
In general, lawyers that started in their business before the recession are less likely to be sued by a company, the new report says.
In other words, law firms are paying lawyers more money and they are being paid less than they were before the downturn, according Litigation Manager.
This suggests that there is some underlying trend that is driving a slowdown in litigation, the analysts say.
The study comes as the Supreme Court is set to consider a lawsuit from a law firm that is seeking to stop the company from being sued for alleged violations of California’s anti-trust law.
The case was filed in 2014, and a panel of three federal judges has yet to rule on the case.
The justices have said that the law that prohibits corporations from suing each other over state or federal laws is unconstitutional and that they are unlikely to reverse it.
They are likely to stay the course and let the case proceed, which could potentially lead to more litigation against the company.
In a statement, the law firms attorney at the time, Tom Pritzker, said that while he would have preferred a ruling from the federal courts to overturn the law, he thinks the high court has been right to take the case to the Supreme court.
The ruling in the case is expected to take place in the coming weeks.