High flying and aggressive US-based law firm Boies Schiller continues to make the news, the latest interest being around the law firm’s apparent failure to make the raises to associates which was apparently due to be made on October 15, then at the end of the month and now . .
The obvious rumors reported in American Lawyer and elsewhere are that there may be cash flow issues for the firm which has recently faced issues around departing partners.
The firm has had a tumultuous time of late with departing partners. Among the issues facing the firm have been bad press received by founder David Boies with his controversial work for profile clients, as well as a slip for the firm in the AmLaw rankings.
Since the new leadership took over the firm, 31 partners have left the firm with 15 going from the LA office in April. The firm also fired a number of associates and staffers in LA.
The original pay plan was for the law firm to match those paid by Cravath Swaine & Moore, but now concerns are arising about the reason for the non-payment.
Firm co-chief Natasha Harrison received a high profile piece in The Times recently, where ‘the lawyer from Croyden’ moved from the UK to the US to co-manage the firm, but clearly faces challenges with the recent events, both economically and in terms of whatever the Boies Schiller balance sheet reveals.
- Lawfront Hits £175m As Private Equity Legal Roll-Up Adds Two More Firms
- Top 5 Custom AI Development Companies for Growth in 2026
- Slaughter And May Still Rules London’s Listed Market. The Problem Is The Market Is Shrinking
- Big Law Firms Have Been Keeping the AI Savings – Now Wall Street Wants Them Back
Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Citi are asking a rather uncomfortable question of their outside lawyers: if AI is making legal work faster, why aren’t the bills getting smaller? Power Points Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Citigroup are pushing major law firms to demonstrate how AI efficiencies are being reflected in their legal bills. Citi has begun asking firms bidding for work to explain their AI-related savings, while Morgan Stanley is moving much of its outside legal work toward competitive bidding and alternative fee arrangements. The pressure goes directly to the BigLaw leverage model, where armies of associates traditionally generated large volumes of billable hours. New LexisNexis research shows 94 per cent of lawyers now use AI for legal work and 55 per cent expect AI to change law firm billing. The battle is shifting from whether lawyers should use AI to a much more interesting question: who gets the financial benefit? For the past few years BigLaw has been enthusiastically telling anyone within PowerPoint range that artificial intelligence will transform legal practice and clients have been listening. - When a Software Bug Becomes a Legal Problem: What Businesses Should Know
- Does Your Massachusetts Police Report Go to Your Insurer?
- Legal AI – Can’t Work Without It: Why 15% of Big Law Attorneys Are Now Officially Dependent on AI
According to fresh survey data from LexisNexis UK, 15% of lawyers at large commercial law firms now admit they are completely dependent on AI to carry out their daily legal work. The reliance is almost as pronounced in corporate legal departments, where 13% of in-house counsel report identical dependency. Artificial intelligence in the legal sector has crossed the rubicon from experimental pilot project to standard operating equipment. Log in to read ., .
