The crisis left behind a legal industry that, despite being rebuilt, was never quite as grand 鈥� at least, according to one popular narrative.

This historical context may explain why the legal industry is becoming increasingly jittery as the likelihood of another major recession seems to be rising with alarming regularity. As of the start of 2025, the US economy is again looking a little bit shaky. The ongoing fluctuations in the global trade war have rattled markets, destabilized industries, and significantly lowered economic expectations for late-2025 and 2026. Indeed, the recent Q1 2025 Law Firm Financial Index from the 成人VR视频 Institute, showed that law firms have a slate of challenges ahead, all of which may prove difficult to navigate.

Already, firms sailed into 2025 with some difficulties ahead of them, such as high baselines from the stellar year of 2024 that set a high bar for comparisons to this year and an expected moderation of US economic growth. All this resulted in our financial models having lower expectations for performance in the first quarter of 2025. Yet, average law firm demand growth overperformed expectations in Q1, and perhaps far more tellingly, law firms enacted their largest rate increase ever, which clients took with little complaint.

Further, collection realization against agreed-upon rates, or how much law firms collect from clients compared to the rate that firms originally negotiated, actually improved compared to that of Q1 2024 and is now at one of its higher levels since the global financial crisis.

This may seem a little contradictory. On one hand, we鈥檙e looking at an economic recession and bringing to mind the last major economic downturn, pointing out how its disastrous impact became mythos among law firms. Yet, on the other hand, we鈥檙e saying that demand and rates are looking far better than one may have expected.

So, what鈥檚 going on here? Well, we still might be experiencing a bit of a false high in which the industry is seeing short-term positive signs that could be entirely outweighed by approaching long-term negatives. In fact, the global financial crisis is a perfect example of the kind of scenarios that law firms could face.

The changing practice mix

From 2008-鈥�10, law firms averaged a quarterly year-over-year contraction in legal demand of more than 2%, plunging all the way to an 8% contraction in 2009. Even worse, most of that lost demand came from lucrative transactional practices. And even though litigation demand did perform better during the economic downturn, it was more a case of allowing law firms to hold on by their collective fingertips than actually compensating them for the overall shellacking other practices saw. It took law firms the better part of a decade to rebuild their transactional practices to their 2007 heights.

Perhaps even more impactful than the demand profile however is what happened to rates. Prior to the global financial crisis, law firms of all sizes were regularly able to raise rates by 6% or more, year over year. After the GFC, however, clients became far more resistant to such rate increases and far more sophisticated in managing their legal expenses.

Corporate general counsels 鈥� many of whom were law firm veterans let go during the worst parts of the crisis or highly skilled law school graduates turned away as firms closed the gates 鈥� proved to be far superior in the aftermath than their predecessors in controlling legal matters and costs from the corporate side. As a result, law firm rate growth slowed tremendously, and collection realization plummeted. The transactional decade that followed was really 10 years of rebuilding for law firms, which were seeking to recover the transactional demand that had been lost. Only by 2019 did firms find themselves secure enough to begin pushing the envelope with rate increases again.

In many ways, the GFC is the financial calamity that fits the near-mythical status attributed to it, at least so far as the financial data shows. Yet the latest data from the Q1 2025 LFFI report suggests that law firms have reversed all this as both rates and demand are up. So, what鈥檚 the concern?

Well, the problem is that this, too, is eerily similar to the GFC. While 2008 pushed firms to the brink, the prior year, 2007, was actually one of the most prosperous years on record, featuring demand and rate growth that remains some of the highest in recent history. It鈥檚 also important to remember that the GFC didn鈥檛 simply start the day Lehman Brothers collapsed in September 2008, but rather the markets experienced a nearly year-long lead-up that began in 2006 and especially hit hard in 2007. During this period, there was significant financial stress as more and more mortgages fell into default and other parts of the international economy felt the pressure. Not surprisingly, this lead-up period produced quite a bit of lucrative work for law firms from panic-stricken clients, but it was a short-term sugar rush.

With the odds of recession climbing, according to major institutions like the World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund as well as major banks such as JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Goldman Sach. There is every possibility that what law firms saw in Q1 is a similar sugar rush of demand.

While there is no certainty that a recession is coming, even if the odds are steadily rising, there is little indication so far that if a recession does occur, it will be on the same scale as the global financial crisis. The GFC was a vicious economic downturn, paled only in living memory by the Great Depression itself. What may end up mattering more than the depth of the recession or its longevity is how today鈥檚 law firm leaders address it and begin planning for it now. The steps they take, from hiring to spending, from expansion to pre-emptive discussions with clients, may be the best moves that can be made as the future becomes increasingly uncertain.

You can download a copy of the recent Q1 2025 Law Firm Financial Index from the 成人VR视频 Institute, here

During his first term, President Trump鈥檚 administration was marked by significant policy shifts, deregulation, and a distinctive approach to international relations and domestic governance. Yet, as he embarks on his second term, questions swirl as to what policy proposals will remain rhetoric and which will come to fruition.

Planning for the future requires an assumption that Trump will be able to achieve several of his policy objectives in the first year or two of his presidency. Yet, governance and events on a geopolitical framework take time, and it may be wise for companies also to take a longer-term view of three or more years.

The impact on firm business

President Trump’s second term is expected to pivot heavily towards deregulation, impacting various sectors from energy to finance. His administration plans to roll back green regulations that currently limit oil & gas drilling and coal mining, potentially boosting traditional energy sectors while curtailing government investment in renewable energy. Additionally, Trump has expressed his intent to rescind unspent funds from the Inflation Reduction Act, a significant climate law, which could hinder growth in industries involved in electric vehicles, solar power, and wind energy.

Further, Trump’s aim to , a noted cryptocurrency proponent, as chair of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission could indicate a change in regulation of that industry. (Indeed, Trump鈥檚 announcement of Atkins lifted Bitcoin to $100,000 for the first time in its history.) However, the change at the top of the regulatory agency also may undermine the influence of sustainable funds, further weakening the momentum behind environmental, social & governance (ESG) investing.

Legal demand

Shifts in regulation would likely drive law firm demand. Given the highly political nature of some of these aims and the precedent of the first Trump administration, legal challenges to these changing regulations are likely. Furthermore, curbing the power of regulatory agencies set the stage for an additional surge in litigation demand.

Corporate demand, on the other hand, is likely to push an even larger boost in demand for legal work. Corporate profit performance correlates with demand for legal services, likely as a result of the increased investment, spending, and dealmaking that companies which are flush with cash tend to make. If the Trump promise to significantly lower corporate tax rates further comes to fruition, companies would be expected to see a substantial boost in profits.

As Trump embarks on his second term, questions swirl as to what policy proposals will remain rhetoric and which will come to fruition.

However, overseas operations are likely to face significant challenges. The European Union, and especially member countries like Germany, could experience economic downturns as a result of potential trade initiatives the Trump administration has favored. This could pose substantial threats to the transactional demand for top law firms鈥� international offices.

While trade wars generally have adverse effects on business, regardless of the outcome for governments involved, law firms on the other hand may see a temporary increase in demand in 2025. This could be due to companies’ reactions to new trade policies 鈥� such as relocating operations, selling assets, or engaging in litigation. In the long term, however, such conflicts have traditionally dampened growth rather than promoted it.

Tariffs & expenses

The kind of tariffs that have been talked about by Donald Trump on the campaign trail would represent a significant shift in US economic policy, with potentially far-reaching implications. While the intention behind tariffs is to bolster domestic manufacturing, the reality is that American manufacturing currently lacks the capacity to substitute for its needed imports at a comparable cost or scale. If US corporations could do such, there would be no need for tariffs.

This apparent strategic mismatch creates a scenario in which businesses that are reliant on imported goods are forced to either absorb the increased costs or more likely pass those costs on to consumers.

With US consumers currently hyper-vigilant about even a hint of price inflation, even a modest increase in prices has the potential to ripple through the economy, exacerbating inflation in sectors that are particularly sensitive to cost changes, such as food, energy, and consumer goods. As a result, law firms could be looking at another significant expansion of their expense profiles over the coming years.

Billing rates & inflation

Yet, for law firms, inflation does have some advantages. Because of the post-pandemic inflation surge, many firms have actively incorporated inflation into their rate-setting procedures, meaning their prices will automatically rise in accordance. And recent history has shown that clients have offered relatively little pushback to such inflation-led rate increases. If this continues, it is likely to provide a solid cushion for firms in a renewed inflationary environment, especially if their own expenses are increasing.

The impact of global events on law firms

While short-term factors are crucial for understanding law firms鈥� near-term landscape, it is equally important to consider prospects a few years into the future and beyond. While the current fluctuating landscape paints a picture of a market that is reactive and adaptable in the short term, the broader horizon reveals deeper challenges and uncertainties that could shape the legal industry for years.

Historically, large law firms have managed both prosperous and challenging times, often identifying opportunities during periods of increased risk. In such situations, law firms frequently rely on counter-cyclical practices, including bankruptcy, litigation, and labor & employment, which tend to perform well during economic downturns.

Historically, large law firms have managed both prosperous and challenging times, often identifying opportunities during periods of increased risk.

However, extreme global instability can pose long-term threats to transactional demand, as we saw last during the aftermath of the global financial crisis (GFC), which saw law firms鈥� transactional practices struggle to rebuild for the better part of a decade afterwards. To illustrate, if a law firm worked 100 hours in 2007, they typically only reached that same level of 100 hours worked annually by 2019. Yet, at that time, counter-cyclical demand did not ride to firms rescue, as rather than surging to counter the decline of transactional demand, counter-cyclical demand merely held on to its pre-GFC levels, slowly declining over the following decade instead. Overall legal demand for firms only recovered in 2023, more than 15 years later.

Thus, law firms cannot assume that legal demand will be a perennial driver of profits should the geopolitical environment settle into a pattern of instability. While the Trump administration has repeatedly stated a desire to end America鈥檚 overseas armed conflicts, there are still ongoing conflicts with which to contend. Given that, there is a risk that significant conflict or protracted trade wars could negatively affect law firm profits for an indefinite period.

Overall, the shaking up of the domestic and international snow globe by the Trump administration is likely to increase legal demand in the short term as clients adjust to ongoing changes, the long-term implications are decidedly more uncertain.

You can find out more about the challenges law firms are currently facing here.

However, the IRA introduces a compelling alternative by permitting the buying and selling of these credits for cash. This creates a new avenue for companies seeking tax savings, offering them the option to engage in a growing tax credit market instead of committing to a long-term renewable energy investment with a sponsor.

Although developers and some investors still have compelling reasons to seek tax equity investments 鈥� such as depreciation deductions 鈥� the ability to transfer these credits introduces additional flexibility that allows investors to consider various options when aligning their investments with their tax objectives.

Overview of tax equity

The US tax code, notably with the addition of the IRA, incentivizes investments in specific sectors, particularly renewable energy. Often, developers of renewable energy projects cannot directly utilize these tax advantages, leading to the creation of a tax equity market. This market draws investment from corporations capable of funding these projects with available cash. Key roles and terms in a conventional tax equity framework include:

• • • The project developer, referred to as the project sponsor, cannot fully leverage tax credits and depreciation benefits due to a limited tax liability.
    • A corporate taxpayer, acting as an investor, gives cash to achieve a desired return on investment or internal rate of return through tax benefits allocation.

For investors, the initial expenditure is the upfront investment in tax equity. The anticipated returns comprise three main components: i) a decrease in cash tax liability through acquiring tax credits and expedited tax depreciation benefits; ii) regular preferred cash distributions on a quarterly or annual basis; and iii) a final cash buy-out at the conclusion of the deal.

In a standard partnership flip deal, the partnership distributes 99% of the income, losses, and tax credits to the investor until a predetermined yield is achieved, although cash distributions follow a different proportion. Once this target yield is met, the share of benefits allocated to the investor diminishes, and the developer has the option to purchase the investor’s residual interest, an option that is commonly exercised.

Credit transfer provisions in the IRA

The IRA now allows for the sale of 11 specific tax credits, which were previously non-transferable or did not exist under US federal income tax regulations. This option is open to a broad range of eligible taxpayers, including for-profit corporations (S-corporations included), partnerships, individuals, and trusts. However, entities like tax-exempt organizations and local governments, which could opt for direct cash refunds, are not permitted to sell credits.

As this area of tax credit transferability continues to develop, the current market offers the advantage of acquiring credits at a discount, with a reduced investment timeframe and a more straightforward legal procedure compared to traditional tax equity dealings.

The cost of purchasing tax credits may differ or be influenced by factors such as the seller’s financial reliability, the project’s scope, the type of credit and its volume, and whether tax insurance is in place. Transactions must be conducted in cash between unrelated parties, and credits can be sold only once. The transfer is formalized through a purchase and sale agreement, accompanied by a transfer election statement included in both the seller’s and buyer’s tax returns for the relevant year. Considering the potential risks associated with these transactions, either the buyer or seller has the option to secure insurance to safeguard against possible recapture events.

To give an example, a recent client of ours was able to reduce their taxes by an estimated $2.2 million by purchasing discounted tax credits. The company鈥檚 C-corporations had the flexibility to acquire IRA credits to lower federal taxes for 2023 and 2024, including purchasing excess credits in 2023 and applying them retroactively for up to three years. What is remarkable is the manufacturer鈥檚 anticipated 8% savings off its total tax bill also will not be taxable for federal income tax purposes.

The company was particularly pleased to seize this opportunity early, given the finite availability of credits, the demand for which might drive up prices in the future. Moreover, the company’s exploration of IRA benefits extends further 鈥� now, the leaders of the company are collaborating with our firm to leverage another IRA opportunity that enables their nonprofit family foundation to access refundable credits for initiatives in green energy investment.

Deciding on the best approach

The market is expected to remain vibrant for both conventional tax equity investments and transactions involving the transferability of tax credits. Developers are likely to keep seeking tax equity investments in order to capitalize on tax depreciation benefits, which are absent in tax credit transfer scenarios. Also, tax equity investors are exploring strategies to engage in traditional tax equity frameworks while also considering separate transactions to transfer credits.

Investors in both avenues 鈥� tax equity and credit transferability 鈥� should implement thorough due diligence and secure tax insurance to minimize risks. The relatively simpler process of tax credit transferability is drawing a significant number of new investors to the field; and ultimately, each developer and investor will assess their unique circumstances to decide whether to opt for tax equity, credit transferability, or a combination of both strategies.

Whatever approach is decided upon, the key is that the transferability of tax credits is an innovation that opens the market for new investors in the tax credit investment space.

And while much of the industry鈥檚 improving health has been the result of strong demand for counter-cyclical work 鈥� which has, thus far, been enough to compensate for weakened demand in transactional practice areas 鈥� that may be changing. Since the LFFI鈥檚 Q2 release, 成人VR视频 Financial Insights鈥� data has started to show signs of counter-cyclical demand growth potentially cresting, adding fuel to the already burning question of 鈥�When will transactional demand return?鈥�

Through the first two quarters of this year, demand growth for transactional work has fallen to levels not seen since the end of the Global Financial Crisis. This is a far cry from the last decade, in which low, almost 0% interest rates were used by the Federal Reserve to stimulate economic growth and spur a recovery. This added liquidity helped corporations finance deals, and over the course of a decade we saw transactional demand drive law firm performance. Central banks continued to keep interest rates low during the COVID-19 pandemic even when governments around the world pumped historic stimulus packages into their economies.

These factors, along with others, helped accelerate transactional demand growth to the greatest pace in our data鈥檚 history, and firms reaped the rewards in 2021. These low-interest rates also contributed to what was then called transitory-inflation, which, when the Fed began realizing was not so transitory, led to a series of the fastest rate hikes in U.S. history. Over the course of the past 18 months Fed officials increased their target interest rates from nearly 0% to a band of 5.25% – 5.5%, while demand for transactional work was pushed down from over 8% growth to a contraction of more than 4% on a rolling 12-month basis.

This brings us back to the present day, in which tightened balance sheets, increased credit risk, and a still uncertain economic environment have cooled much of the current appetite for deal-making. Law firms, which in 2022 saw 37% of their billable hours come from clients鈥� eagerness for transactional work, are suffering. Lower demand has translated into lower productivity, which itself has resulted in some associates being let go, and partners enduring lower profits per equity partner as they wait for a return of transactional demand; a return which increasingly hinges on a return of lower interest rates.

This week, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) announced that their target rate would hold steady at a band of 5.25% to 5.5%. Most of this pause was already priced into the market with a probability of 97% and the end of last week that the Fed would stay at the target rate set in July, according to the CME FedWatch Tool (which tracks Fed Funds鈥� futures prices). Moving forward, market expectations are more divided. Probabilities of a rate increase in November and December are currently at 28% and 46% respectively, with the market forecasting rate decreases to potentially come in no earlier than January or March 2024.

These expectations largely depend on how the Fed interprets economic indicators like the inflation index, jobs reports, and GDP growth. Last week headline inflation ticked up to 3.7% in August from 3.2% in July as consumers faced rising energy and food prices, while core CPI rose a lesser but still concerning 0.3 percentage points to 4.3% in August, compared to July. The jobs report from August showed slower hiring and posted unemployment at 3.8%, up from 3.5% in July but still well below historic norms. Current GDP forecasts also stand well above the Fed鈥檚 long-run potential growth rate of around 2%, with the Atlanta Fed鈥檚 GDPNow model estimating 4.9% growth in Q3.

However, it is the muddiness and crosscurrents of these indicators that cloud the Fed鈥檚 interest rate path and make it difficult for law firms to plan ahead for a potential resurgence of transactional demand. If the Fed interprets an uptick in unemployment as signs of a cooling economy, that may reinforce its current stance of holding rates steady and eventually lowering them. However, if inflation continues to ascend, or remain elevated, and the economy continues to run hot, the Fed may very well raise rates going into 2024 or hold the current levels for longer, further stressing transactional demand.

Personal Consumer Expenditures (PCE) inflation (the Feds preferred gage of inflation) has come down from above 5% last year, but many fear that the Feds鈥� 2% core inflation target will be harder to reach as elevated housing and rent costs and increased wages place upward pressure on prices.

All of this leaves the Fed with a difficult decision on how much harder and longer to squeeze monetary policy. During yesterday鈥檚 FOMC meeting, Fed chair Jerome Powell said that 鈥渢he process of getting inflation sustainably down to 2% has a long way to go鈥�, and that 鈥渟tronger economic activity means we have to do more with rates.鈥� He also added that economic lags in response to monetary tightening would be another reason for the Fed to proceed carefully, signaling to the market and legal industry that this period of uncertain transactional movement is likely to remain for the time being.

Despite the uncertainty in interest rates, it does appear that there is growing optimism from corporate General Counsel (GCs) in terms of increased transactional spend. When GCs were asked if they anticipate an increase or decrease in legal spend in specific practices in the next 6 to 12 months, the net difference between the respondents that say they expect an increase minus those that expect a decrease was, for example, 9.1 percentage points in regard to anticipated M&A spending, according to 成人VR视频 Market Insights data (This difference is referred to as net spend anticipation).

Over the course of 2023 it鈥檚 easy to see that there has been a notably positive swing, especially in M&A and corporate work. The data indicates that buyers could be anticipating their C-suite and boards will eye more deal-making, under the assumption that interest rates will start easing sometime during 2024 and that the declining demand for these practice areas may have bottomed out.

As we navigate the intricate landscape of the legal industry in 2023, however, it is evident that transactional demand is facing unprecedented challenges, reminiscent of the post-Global Financial Crisis era. The Federal Reserve’s decision to maintain interest rates at the current level has provided a momentary respite from drastic changes, yet the path forward remains shrouded in uncertainty, with economic indicators pulling in conflicting directions.

However, there are glimmers of optimism for transactional practice areas; and as we move forward, the legal industry remains poised, waiting for clearer signals from the Fed and the broader economic landscape.

Law firms are not alone in experiencing rising costs; inflation has been a general problem for the global economy for the last few years. It鈥檚 perfectly reasonable that law firm leadership may have been caught flatfooted by the impact of inflation 鈥� many economists were caught off guard as well. Strong central banks and their ability to target inflation, combined with the price-competition of globalization, meant that inflation was supposed to remain a problem only for developing countries or those which strayed from the path of economic orthodoxy. With inflation ticking up since 2021 globally, however, law firms 鈥� like most other professional services firms 鈥� have had to deal with a drumbeat of rising expenses that have hammered profits.

And while it鈥檚 one thing to say that inflation caused firm profits to drop, it鈥檚 another to understand its actual impact and how firms can counter it.

Inflation and real rates

Most of the revenue growth for law firms based in the United States comes not from expanding the number of hours firm lawyers work (demand), but rather by firms鈥� unique ability to regularly push rate increases. The problem with inflation is that these rate increases aren鈥檛 as beneficial as they otherwise would be. Put another way, if your rates rise by 10% but all of your expenses go up by 15%, you鈥檙e still falling behind. So, if the general rise of firm expenses exceeds firms鈥� rate increases, then their real rate growth is actually negative, and they鈥檝e fallen behind.

Charting inflation versus worked rates (or agreed-upon rates) is thus an easy way to measure the potential impact of inflation on rate performance, as the gap between inflation and rates signifies the real rate growth firms experience. Historically, real worked rate growth has been about 2%, but the resurgence of inflation over the last few years has resulted in worked rate growth only slightly hovering above core inflation in 2021 and actually falling behind in 2022. (Note: For these purposes, we use the PCE Core inflation measure [Personal Consumption Expenditures Excluding Food and Energy] both because it is the standard inflation measurement of the Federal Reserve and because we believe it is the most reliable indicator of the rate of inflation experienced by law firms, the reasoning for which will be expanded upon shortly.)

Thus, the average firm experienced negative real worked rate growth, or a contraction in 2022.

Inflation doesn鈥檛 necessarily appear on the revenue line in firms鈥� ledgers, however. Rather, it affects the expense section. The total expense per lawyer (full-time equivalent or FTE) growth of law firms in Q2 2023 showed 5.0% growth and closely tracked the 4.6% inflation experienced by the broader economy in Q2 2023. However, this is only a surface-level viewpoint of how rates and expenses interact 鈥� to get a true understanding of how inflation impacts law firms鈥� expenses, you have to do more digging.

Headline inflation and return-to-office

One of the most common ways of cutting apart inflation is looking at headline inflation versus core inflation. Headline inflation refers to the total inflation measured, while core inflation excludes food and energy prices, which are often notoriously volatile, obscuring the movements of more stable elements. These prices are usually split out to allow core inflation to provide a better idea of the underlying stickier inflation number.

To create a similar comparison, the Q2 LFFI report broke down the percentage-point impact of different expense categories on overhead expense growth, which are those expenses not related to the direct compensation of lawyers. The analysis found that pandemic-related and return-to-office-impacted expenses displayed similarly volatile behavior to food and energy prices, causing much of the expense instability that law firms experienced over the last three years.

In 2021, firms鈥� bottom lines benefitted greatly from work-from-home savings as expenses contracted compared to the previous year. In Q2 2022 however, the push to bring lawyers back to the office resulted in impacted expenses contributing 8 percentage points to the average firm鈥檚 13.5% rise in overhead expenses. Twelve months later this category cooled rapidly, dropping down to contribute only 3.3 percentage points to firms鈥� overall 7.9% growth in overhead expenses. The key takeaway here is that this volatile group of expenses, while prone to rapid rises, is also able to rapidly cool.

And this is where core expenses come in. Representing categories of expenses that are more central to the operation of law firms, such as technology and support staff compensation, core expenses have proven much more difficult to tamp down. Even in Q2 2021, core overhead expenses had risen enough to dampen some work-from-home savings. The next year, they had increased by 4.7% (notably not far off from the PCE Core inflation rate of 5.0% during 2022). This category of expenses is also the most challenging to firms at the current point, as this category has become the source of the bulk of operating cost growth, contributing 4.3 percentage points to the average firm鈥檚 7.9% overhead expense growth.

What can law firms do in response?

Law firms in this situation face the same issue as central banks when it comes to inflation. Headline inflation has dramatically cooled since its heights, but the more difficult to control core inflation continues to be an impediment as it maintains steady growth over the previous year.

While firms cannot control interest rates, they have proven themselves able to increase their agreed-upon rates. Firms will need to take measures to ensure that real rate growth remains robust for the next few years. Whether this comes from more aggressive negotiations (using their own expense growth as leverage) or by using emerging technology to increase the value-per-hour of their services, firms will need to keep up the momentum.

At the same time, the challenges presented by return-to-the-office mandates may simply not be worth the risks. Reports of mandatory return-to-the-office regret are rampant across multiple industries and the ever-greater expenses required to bring employees back to the office don鈥檛 seem to be paying any premiums in productivity. Backing away and finding a more cost-effective way to bring people back to the office (or maintain a hybrid schedule) may allow the volatility of these expense categories to work in firms鈥� favor.

Ultimately, law firms have discovered that inflation is not picky, and it is just as willing to increase the operating expenses of a firm as it is to impact the price of a used car or a bag of groceries.