State Bar of Michigan 2014 Economics of Law Practice Attorney Income and Billing Rate Summary Report July 2014 State Bar of Michigan ECONOMICS OF LAW PRACTICE 2014 Contents Economics of Law Practice in Michigan 2014 Attorney Income and Billing Rate Summary Report July 2014 Methods and Measures....................................................................................................................... 1 I 2013 Attorney Income Table 1—2013 Reported Attorney Income—Private Practitioners...................................................... 3 Table 2—2013 Reported Attorney Income—Non-Private Practitioners.............................................. 3 II 2013 Attorney Hourly Billing Rates Table 3—2013 Attorney Hourly Billing Rates...................................................................................... 4 Table 4—2013 Attorney Hourly Billing Rates by Years in Practice...................................................... 4 Table 5—2013 Attorney Hourly Billing Rates by Firm Size in a Single Location................................. 5 Table 6—2013 Attorney Hourly Billing Rates by Office Location........................................................ 5 Table 7—2013 Attorney Hourly Billing Rates by Field of Practice...................................................... 6 Table 8—2013 Attorney Hourly Billing Rates by County..................................................................... 7 Table 9—2013 Attorney Hourly Billing Rates by Circuit .....................................................................9 State Bar of Michigan ECONOMICS OF LAW PRACTICE 2014 Economics of Law Practice in Michigan 2014 Attorney Income and Billing Rate Key Findings Report The survey was conducted in May 2014 and requested income and billing rate information for 2013. The State Bar of Michigan Economics of Law Practice Survey provides Michigan attorneys with a resource that allows access to the most current law practice economic information available. The survey results are provided as a service to members of the State Bar of Michigan. The survey has two practical objectives: • To provide timely, relevant and accurate information to inform and guide the practical management decisions of Michigan attorneys • To track and illustrate changes and trends within the legal profession The survey monitors and reports on several points of information useful to attorneys: • Attorney income • Prevailing average hourly billing rates by several indicators including fields of practice, judicial circuit, and geographic location • Time allocated to billable and non-billable professional activities • Management practices • Perceptions regarding current and future economic circumstances related to the practice of law The key finding report contains information pertaining to attorney income and billing rates. It is produced as an early and separate report to provide attorneys with this target information as quickly as possible, as it is the most requested information from all attorneys. All other information will be contained in the full 2014 Economics of Law Practice Summary Report that will follow. Methods and Measures The 2014 Economics of Law Practice Survey was conducted in May of 2014. An electronic survey was sent to 18,610 private practice members of the State Bar of Michigan, and 14,861 non-private practice members, inviting their participation. 2,734 completed questionnaires were returned by private practitioners (14.7% response rate) and 1,158 completed questionnaires were returned by non-private practitioners (7.8%). Questionnaires were tabulated by Dr. James McComb, an independent consultant statistician. To help interpret the information presented in the surveys the following is a brief description of statistical terms of measures of central tendency (median and mean) and measures of dispersion (spread). Mean—The mean (also called the average) is calculated by adding the values of all responses then dividing by the number of responses. Example: Three responses (30, 1, 2) are reported. The average or mean is calculated by adding 30+1+2=33 and then by dividing by 3 = 11. Median—The median is the middle value in a series or distribution of values (50th percentile, which is initially rank-ordered (from low to high or vice versa). By definition half of the numbers are greater and half are less than the median. Example: Three responses (30, 1, 2) are reported. The median is the middle number of the order of distribution (1, 2, 30), or 2. By comparison, the average of this distribution as shown above is 11. Use of the median as a statistical metric of central tendency reduces the effects of ‘outliers’ (extremely high or low values, such as the data point of 30 in the previous example) while the average does not. Median values are utilized throughout the survey results to denote the measure of central tendency. Contents Back Next  —1— State Bar of Michigan ECONOMICS OF LAW PRACTICE 2014 Percentiles—In addition to the median, four other percentile values are used in the survey results to reveal the spread of a particular data distribution. The percentiles include: • 25th percentile—Also referred to as the “lower quartile.” One-fourth of the values are less and three-fourths are more than this value. • Median or 50th percentile—Half of the values are less and half are more than the “median” value. • 75th percentile—Also referred to as the “upper quartile.” Three-fourths of the values are less and one-fourth are more than this value. • 95th percentile—Ninety-five percent of the values are less and five percent of the values are more than this value. Note of clarification: Extreme values (multiple thousands per hour) were excluded due to their unrepresentative qualities; four were excluded for reporting $10,000 or above per hour. Contents Back Next  —2— State Bar of Michigan ECONOMICS OF LAW PRACTICE 2014 I 2013 Attorney Income Table 1—2013 Reported Attorney Income—Private Practitioners value by percentile N 25th Percentile Median Mean 75th Percentile 95th Percentile Sole Practitioner, office outside of home 444 40,000 75,000 120,929 145,000 325,000 Sole Practitioner, working out of home office 222 9,563 25,083 47,881 64,000 175,000 Sole Practitioner, sharing space 138 40,000 70,000 92,728 103,000 300,000 Managing Partner 161 104,000 200,000 329,036 350,000 1,100,000 Equity Partner/Shareholder 528 132,287 215,000 300,921 350,000 750,000 Non-Equity Partner 142 121,000 174,500 181,482 211,000 360,000 Of Counsel 49 45,000 114,000 134,404 180,000 362,352 Senior Associate 109 85,000 105,000 123,595 143,000 250,000 Associate 342 50,000 70,000 79,412 97,000 139,935 Arbitrator/Mediator 8 4,250 42,500 131,688 230,000 500,000 Assigned Counsel * - - - - - Other Total 51 60,000 100,000 559,055 150,000 950,000 2,196 52,900 100,000 178,340 200,000 500,000 *Data is not displayed for categories with fewer than three respondents due to insufficient information but is included in the totals. Table 2—2013 Reported Attorney Income—Non-Private Practitioners value by percentile N 25th Percentile Median Mean 75th Percentile 95th Percentile Academia 41 50,000 75,000 101,131 141,500 200,000 Law School 38 58,000 81,695 96,208 149,000 200,000 In-House Counsel 246 87,000 125,000 167,194 185,000 400,000 Judge 55 138,000 139,900 139,646 140,000 176,000 Other Judiciary 76 49,000 68,747 258,477 90,175 125,000 Legal Service Agency 70 42,132 55,000 56,944 71,938 95,000 Federal Government 70 83,000 111,100 112,053 144,000 165,000 Local Government 147 52,000 75,000 75,125 98,500 116,000 State Government 152 67,500 90,000 87,722 107,570 134,000 * - - - - - Military 5 70,000 80,000 71,363 80,000 85,000 Non-Law Related 22 30,000 58,000 72,701 96,000 180,000 Non-Profit Org 59 42,000 58,000 76,968 102,000 220,000 Retired 15 2,000 20,000 57,333 130,000 155,500 Other 45 50,000 69,000 99,002 102,458 300,000 1043 58,000 90,000 119,378 125,000 220,000 Governmental Relations Total *Data is not displayed for categories with fewer than three respondents due to insufficient information but is included in the total. Contents Back Next  —3— State Bar of Michigan ECONOMICS OF LAW PRACTICE 2014 II 2013 Attorney Hourly Billing Rates Table 3—2013 Attorney Hourly Billing Rates value by percentile N 25 Percentile Median Mean 75th Percentile 95th Percentile Sole Practitioner, office outside of home 468 185 225 231 250 383 Sole Practitioner, working out of home office 230 150 200 199 250 350 Sole Practitioner, sharing space 146 175 211 231 275 350 Managing Partner 171 205 250 282 325 500 Equity Partner/Shareholder 569 225 310 333 417 545 Non-Equity Partner 159 250 325 330 400 500 Of Counsel 50 225 300 315 408 500 Senior Associate 115 200 250 264 300 445 Associate th 351 175 208 218 250 320 Arbitrator/Mediator 8 188 275 261 329 400 Assigned Counsel * - - - - - Other Total 41 180 250 254 300 523 2,310 192 245 265 315 490 *Data is not displayed for categories with fewer than three respondents due to insufficient information but is included in the totals. Table 4—2013 Attorney Hourly Billing Rates by Years in Practice value by percentile <1 N 25th Percentile Median Mean 75th Percentile 95th Percentile 8 138 163 172 214 250 1 to 2 140 150 189 189 225 284 3 to 5 197 160 200 205 250 317 6 to 10 326 180 225 236 283 370 11 to 15 228 195 250 260 300 435 16 to 25 544 200 269 291 350 488 26 to 30 264 200 250 279 347 500 31 to 35 319 200 250 276 300 515 >35 540 200 250 285 350 525 2566 192 245 264 310 483 Total Contents Back Next  —4— State Bar of Michigan ECONOMICS OF LAW PRACTICE 2014 Table 5—2013 Attorney Hourly Billing Rates by Firm Size in a Single Location value by percentile 1 N 25th Percentile Median Mean 75th Percentile 95th Percentile 902 175 210 222 250 375 2 249 183 225 248 275 400 3 155 200 250 259 300 400 4 to 6 302 192 235 259 300 450 7 to 10 201 192 250 273 325 455 11 to 20 184 201 260 290 366 500 21 t0 50 217 212 288 299 340 520 >50 277 280 375 377 475 570 2487 192 245 265 313 485 Total Table 6—2013 Attorney Hourly Billing Rates by Office Location value by percentile N 25th Percentile Median Mean 75th Percentile 95th Percentile Downtown Detroit & New Center area 159 195 275 304 400 550 Detroit, not downtown 16 150 250 243 313 538 Remainder Wayne County 139 195 225 227 250 350 Oakland County (north of M-59) 69 200 250 266 300 563 Oakland County (south of M-59) 625 200 250 280 325 495 Southfield 157 210 275 308 395 550 Mount Clemens area 40 181 225 232 258 383 Remainder Macomb County 94 192 225 237 285 400 Ann Arbor area 127 200 275 290 350 520 Livingston County 29 192 200 213 250 275 Battle Creek area 24 163 200 203 250 250 Bay City/Midland/Saginaw area 52 178 216 228 250 450 Flint area 66 180 215 238 275 400 Grand Rapids area 330 210 280 298 370 510 Jackson area 29 167 185 210 240 370 Traverse City area 42 175 200 206 240 288 Kalamazoo area 68 178 243 242 295 400 Muskegon area 44 175 200 231 250 455 Lansing area 171 175 230 241 297 400 Mid-Michigan area 38 150 184 202 250 350 Other metro areas 20 150 175 190 207 363 Out state, lower peninsula 47 175 200 212 242 383 Upper Peninsula 33 123 173 158 195 225 Northern Michigan, lower peninsula 58 153 200 197 222 333 Out of state 103 225 300 312 355 613 2580 192 245 265 312 485 Total Contents Back Next  —5— State Bar of Michigan ECONOMICS OF LAW PRACTICE 2014 Table 7—2013 Attorney Hourly Billing Rates by Field of Practice value by percentile N 25th Percentile Median Mean 75th Percentile 95th Percentile Administrative law 85 200 250 284 350 520 Appellate law 139 195 275 274 350 480 Arbitration/Mediation 89 200 260 285 325 550 Auto (not lemon) law 38 250 350 344 400 550 Auto no fault 142 150 250 300 400 550 Bankruptcy, creditor 73 250 295 327 350 510 Bankruptcy, debtor 124 195 223 230 260 350 Business planning 337 215 260 289 325 520 Civil litigation 768 210 275 290 345 500 Civil rights 74 200 250 276 350 450 Collections, creditor 107 175 200 225 260 375 Collections, debtor 14 225 300 295 385 400 Condemnation law 5 250 300 291 330 400 Construction law 70 225 275 287 325 465 Consumer law (including lemon law) 44 200 335 321 400 500 Criminal (private defendant) 293 175 200 222 250 360 Criminal (public defendant) 111 50 85 112 190 250 Employment law (plaintiff) 94 200 250 274 330 450 Employment law (defense) 145 225 275 285 340 455 Environmental law 40 245 300 319 363 528 Family law 509 175 200 221 250 350 Foreclosure, debtor 6 200 210 237 350 350 Foreclosure, lender 48 198 215 237 250 435 General practice 284 175 210 227 250 360 Health & hospital law 62 245 298 330 420 550 Immigration law 27 175 250 254 300 405 Insurance law 149 150 195 236 300 455 Intellectual property/trade secrets 120 250 333 342 425 550 Landlord/tenant (commercial) 30 190 250 254 300 445 Landlord/tenant (residential) 67 165 200 189 210 250 Medical malpractice (plaintiff) 39 350 400 474 500 1000 Medical malpractice (defendant) 51 150 175 171 185 238 Other civil law 261 200 250 272 325 500 Other professional liability 40 223 315 320 388 500 Personal injury (defendant) 119 150 165 190 200 325 Personal injury (plaintiff) 184 250 350 358 400 600 Probate, administration, decedent’s estates 371 195 225 234 250 395 Guardianship & conservatorship 103 175 210 215 250 350 Probate litigation, decedent’s estates 90 200 243 250 275 460 Contents Probate, trust administration 198 200 250 272 300 475 Back Probate, trust litigation 68 243 295 300 350 460 Product liability 29 220 300 304 350 500 —6— Next  State Bar of Michigan ECONOMICS OF LAW PRACTICE 2014 Table 7—2013 Attorney Hourly Billing Rates by Field of Practice value by percentile N 25th Percentile Median Mean 75th Percentile 95th Percentile Public benefits 14 180 225 231 250 395 Public corporation law (including city & village) 71 140 175 196 225 445 Real estate 369 200 250 257 300 450 Securities law 31 275 400 387 500 600 Tax law 137 250 300 331 410 550 Workers’ compensation employee 25 200 250 244 300 400 Workers’ compensation employer 27 100 115 115 125 145 6321 195 250 263 300 480 Total Table 8—2013 Attorney Hourly Billing Rates by County value by percentile N 25th Percentile Median Mean 75th Percentile 95th Percentile Alcona 3 153 195 183 200 200 Alger 5 175 197 181 200 225 Allegan 55 193 225 249 290 425 Alpena 9 180 185 188 200 210 Antrim 26 175 210 208 233 275 Arenac * - - - - - Baraga 5 110 175 152 180 195 Barry 16 223 258 259 292 333 Bay 47 175 225 233 275 450 Benzie 14 150 205 219 235 625 Berrien 47 175 217 238 267 400 Branch 11 150 190 195 240 250 Calhoun 54 175 201 220 250 375 Cass 21 160 200 228 255 400 Charlevoix 18 200 220 251 280 545 Cheboygan 8 175 200 215 252 333 Chippewa 4 165 183 184 203 205 Clare 8 204 255 259 320 350 Clinton 56 186 225 234 263 350 Crawford 5 150 180 187 225 250 Delta 7 105 133 136 175 200 Dickinson 4 131 181 184 238 250 Eaton 91 175 213 220 250 340 Emmet 24 198 226 242 254 445 Genesee 129 180 217 241 275 400 Gladwin * - - - - - Gogebic * - - - - - Grand Traverse 66 167 211 213 250 325 Gratiot 11 183 225 255 307 500 —7— Contents Back Next  State Bar of Michigan ECONOMICS OF LAW PRACTICE 2014 Table 8—2013 Attorney Hourly Billing Rates by County value by percentile Hillsdale N 25th Percentile Median Mean 75th Percentile 95th Percentile 4 179 190 235 292 383 Houghton 8 123 167 163 185 250 Huron 3 320 325 363 445 445 Ingham 218 175 232 249 300 480 Ionia 11 185 200 226 250 375 Iosco 8 139 193 198 260 325 Iron * - - - - - Isabella 20 179 220 223 250 342 Jackson 49 167 190 231 300 400 Kalamazoo 121 190 242 258 320 450 8 125 200 178 220 250 Kalkaska 389 208 280 298 370 510 Keweenaw Kent * - - - - - Lake 0 - - - - - Lapeer 37 175 205 242 250 450 Leelanau 27 157 223 210 250 300 Lenawee 34 183 241 250 300 420 Livingston 86 185 225 231 267 350 * - - - - - Mackinac 6 200 228 214 250 250 Macomb 675 200 250 262 300 450 Luce Manistee 5 205 210 209 225 255 Marquette 23 137 180 181 225 300 Mason 4 153 190 179 205 210 Mecosta 9 150 200 210 250 335 Menominee 3 75 143 131 175 175 Midland 33 185 228 249 275 470 Missaukee 3 125 150 162 210 210 Monroe 35 167 183 253 250 900 Montcalm 18 195 241 254 333 450 Montmorency 9 175 200 193 210 233 Muskegon 72 182 233 269 328 455 Newaygo 13 175 193 194 200 275 Oakland 1226 200 250 278 325 500 Oceana 9 127 180 188 200 383 Ogemaw 6 125 163 150 180 195 Ontonagon 3 83 173 186 300 300 185 210 250 - - - Osceola 5 167 200 Oscoda * - - Otsego 13 150 200 198 225 300 Ottawa 182 200 250 278 325 485 Presque Isle 5 185 200 192 200 210 Roscommon 6 150 165 174 192 250 Back Saginaw 80 172 225 244 299 468 Next  —8— Contents State Bar of Michigan ECONOMICS OF LAW PRACTICE 2014 Table 8—2013 Attorney Hourly Billing Rates by County value by percentile Sanilac N 25th Percentile Median Mean 75th Percentile 95th Percentile 3 57 60 106 200 200 Schoolcraft 3 107 175 159 197 197 Shiawassee 23 175 200 282 250 900 St. Clair 29 180 200 215 250 325 St. Joseph 21 200 235 230 250 300 Tuscola 13 155 200 189 220 238 Van Buren 36 155 201 215 250 360 Washtenaw 245 200 250 284 342 510 Wayne 1195 200 250 275 325 500 Wexford 10 167 230 238 288 350 Statewide Practice 45 201 263 301 375 560 125 223 300 336 425 625 5968 192 245 264 309 480 Out of state practice Total *Data is not displayed for counties with fewer than three respondents due to insufficient information but is included in the totals. Table 9—2013 Attorney Hourly Billing Rates by Circuit value by percentile Count 25th Percentile Median Mean 75th Percentile 95th Percentile 1 Hillsdale 4 179 190 235 292 383 2 Berrien 47 175 217 238 267 400 3 Wayne 1195 200 250 275 325 500 4 Jackson 49 167 190 231 300 400 5 Barry 16 223 258 259 292 333 6 Oakland 1226 200 250 278 325 500 7 Genesee 129 180 217 241 275 400 8 Ionia, Montcalm 29 193 240 244 300 375 9 Kalamazoo 121 190 242 258 320 450 10 Saginaw 80 172 225 244 299 468 11 Alger, Luce, Mackinac, Schoolcraft 15 175 200 191 225 250 12 Baraga, Houghton, Keweenaw 14 110 174 160 180 250 13 Antrim, Grand Traverse, Leelanau 119 167 213 211 250 300 14 Muskegon 72 182 233 269 328 455 15 Branch 11 150 190 195 240 250 16 Macomb 675 200 250 262 300 450 17 Kent 389 208 280 298 370 510 18 Bay 47 175 225 233 275 450 19 Benzie, Manistee 19 150 205 217 235 625 20 Ottawa 182 200 250 278 325 485 21 Isabella 20 179 220 223 250 342 22 Washtenaw 245 200 250 284 342 510 —9— Contents Back Next  State Bar of Michigan ECONOMICS OF LAW PRACTICE 2014 Table 9—2013 Attorney Hourly Billing Rates by Circuit value by percentile Count 25th Percentile Median Mean 75th Percentile 95th Percentile 23 Alcona, Arenac, Iosco, Oscoda 26 150 198 191 222 320 24 Sanilac 3 57 60 106 200 200 25 Marquette 23 137 180 181 225 300 26 Alpena, Montmorency 18 175 188 190 210 233 27 Newaygo, Oceana 22 160 187 192 200 275 28 Missaukee, Wexford 13 150 210 220 275 350 29 Clinton, Gratiot 67 185 225 238 275 350 30 Ingham 218 175 232 249 300 480 31 St. Clair 29 180 200 215 250 325 32 Gogebic, Ontonagon 5 83 173 183 275 300 33 Charlevoix 18 200 220 251 280 545 34 Ogemaw, Roscommon 12 138 163 162 186 250 35 Shiawassee 23 175 200 282 250 900 36 Van Buren 36 155 201 215 250 360 37 Calhoun 54 175 201 220 250 375 38 Monroe 35 167 183 253 250 900 39 Lenawee 34 183 241 250 300 420 40 Lapeer 37 175 205 242 250 450 41 Dickinson, Iron, Menominee 9 125 143 159 175 250 42 Midland 33 185 228 249 275 470 43 Cass 21 160 200 228 255 400 44 Livingston 86 185 225 231 267 350 45 St. Joseph 21 200 235 230 250 300 46 Crawford, Kalkaska, Otsego 13 130 200 181 225 250 47 Delta 7 105 133 136 175 200 48 Allegan 55 193 225 249 290 425 49 Mecosta, Osceola 14 150 200 201 250 335 50 Chippewa 4 165 183 184 203 205 51 Lake, Mason 4 153 190 179 205 210 52 Huron 3 320 325 363 445 445 53 Cheboygan, Presque Isle 13 185 200 206 210 333 54 Tuscola 13 155 200 189 220 238 55 Clare, Gladwin 10 183 250 249 307 350 56 Eaton 91 175 213 220 250 340 57 Emmet 24 198 226 242 254 445 84 Statewide Practice 45 201 263 301 375 560 85 Out Of State Practice 125 223 300 336 425 625 5968 192 245 264 309 480 Total Contents Back Next  —10— STATE BAR OF MICHIGAN ECONOMICS OF LAW PRACTICE 2014 SBM Ema m! Mummy BUILDING JLIWHEEND SIRE-LI L-wsmn. Ml 4354:1912 I i uH-m r.4 r55