Case: 2:13-cv-00953-MHW-TPK Doc #: 288-2 Filed:...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF OHIO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JON HUSTED, et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 2:13-cv-00953

Judge Michael H. Watson

Intervening Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support

of Their Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

Intervening Plaintiffs, Robert M. Hart, Robert Fitrakis on behalf of the Green

Party of Ohio, Max Russell Erwin, and Don Shrader on behalf of the Constitution Party

of Ohio (collectively “GPO & CPO”) file this Memorandum in Support of their Motion

for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.

I. Background

The original Plaintiffs, comprised of the Libertarian Party of Ohio, its chairman,

and two candidates (collectively “LPO”), filed suit against Defendant Husted on

September 25, 2013, challenging Ohio’s residence requirement for circulators of

candidate petitions, O.R.C. 3503.06(C)(1)(a). The State of Ohio intervened as a

defendant. While the suit was underway, on November 6, 2013, the State of Ohio

enacted S.B. 193, which, if implemented, would eliminate minor political parties’ access

to Ohio’s 2014 primary ballot, and burden their access in subsequent years. In response,

Case: 2:13-cv-00953-MHW-TPK Doc #: 54 Filed: 02/25/14 Page: 1 of 10 PAGEID #: 867

Case: 2:13-cv-00953-MHW-TPK Doc #: 288-2 Filed: 03/30/15 Page: 1 of 117 PAGEID #: 7546

2

LPO amended its Complaint (Doc. #16), to challenge S.B. 193 pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§1983 and the Ohio Constitution. On November 10, 2013, LPO moved for a preliminary

injunction (Doc. #17), seeking to prohibit Defendants from removing LPO from Ohio’s

2014 primary and general election ballots.

GPO & CPO were likewise threatened by S.B. 193, and, accordingly, sought and

were granted leave to intervene as Plaintiffs. (Doc. #19). On December 3, GPO & CPO

filed their motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Doc.

#30) to prohibit Husted from blocking their participation in Ohio’s 2014 primary and

general elections, or in subsequent elections.

Defendants opposed both motions, and briefing by all parties ensued. On January

7, 2014, this court issued its Opinion and Order (Doc. #47), awarding LPO and GPO &

CPO a Preliminary Injunction that ordered Defendant Husted to provide LPO and GPO &

CPO access to the 2014 primary and general elections, as prayed for in their respective

motions.

Defendants appealed this Court’s Preliminary Injunction to the Sixth Circuit

Court of Appeals on January 10, 2014, and simultaneously filed a motion in the Appellate

Court seeking an expedited briefing schedule. The Plaintiffs all opposed the motion to

expedite and, following a round of accelerated briefing, on January 15, the Court of

Appeals denied Defendants’ motion. Finally, in a mediation conference on February 11,

2014, Defendants agreed to dismiss their appeal with prejudice, which they did by

stipulation filed in the Circuit Court on February 18, 2014.



3

II. Intervening Plaintiffs GPO & CPO are Prevailing Parties, and, as Such are Entitled to an Award of Their Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.

The Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Award Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b),

provides that “[i]n any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of section 1983 of this

title . . . the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party . . . a reasonable

attorney’s fee as part of the costs.”

A plaintiff who wins a preliminary injunction is a prevailing party within the

meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1988 if the plaintiff has obtained a “material change in the legal

relationship that directly benefits the plaintiff by modifying the defendant’s behavior

towards her.” Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Husted, No. 2:11-cv-722, 2013 WL 4833033,

at *2 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 11, 2013) (quoting McQueary v. Conway, 614 F.3d 591, at 597-98

(6th Cir. 2010)).

The fact that the relief granted to GPO & CPO and LPO is in the form of an

injunction that is styled “preliminary,” does not mean that the relief is not a material

change in the legal relationship between the plaintiffs and defendants. Id. To the

contrary, the subject of the injunction -- access to the 2014 election cycle -- has been

permanently decided. Nothing can change the fact that, as the direct result of the

injunction, GPO & CPO and LPO now have access to the ballot during Ohio’s 2014

election cycle.

Although GPO & CPO have requested additional relief with regard to the

application of S.B. 193 in years 2015 and beyond, the fact that such further relief has yet

to be addressed by the Court does not negate GPO & CPO’s status as prevailing parties

with regard to access in 2014. Indeed, to be a prevailing party requires success only upon

a single claim. Id. at *3.



4

Thus GPO & CPO, having sought and obtained permanent success in “a

proceeding to enforce a provision of section 1983,” are prevailing parties for purposes

of 42 U.S.C. §1988(b).

III. The Fees and Costs Submitted by Intervening Plaintiffs GPO & CPO are Reasonable.

The determination of a reasonable attorneys’ fee award begins with the “lodestar”

amount, which is the product of the number of hours reasonably expended on the

litigation times the reasonable hourly rate. Waldo v. Consumers Energy Co., 726 F.3d

802, 821 (6th Cir. 2013). After the Court determines the loadstar figure, it may enhance

that amount by a multiplier based on a twelve-factor test. This test, composed of what

are sometimes referred to as the “Johnson factors,” after the opinion of the Fifth Circuit

Court of Appeals in Johnson v. Georgia Hwy. Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974),

is designed to ensure that the ultimate award is reasonable, and has been adopted in the

Sixth Circuit. See, e.g., Jordan v. City of Cleveland, 464 F.3d 584 (6th Cir. 2006).

A. Determining the Lodestar

To determine a reasonable hourly rate, courts look to “the market rate in the

venue sufficient to encourage competent representation.” Sykes v. Anderson, 419 Fed.

Appx. 615, 618 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Gonter v. Hunt Valve Co., 510 F. 3d 610, 618

(6th Cir. 2007)).

GPO & CPO were represented in this matter by the American Civil Liberties

Union of Ohio Foundation (“ACLU”), a non-profit organization that relies upon

membership and contributions, augmented by awards of attorneys’ fees when available,

to fund its operations. Declaration of Freda J. Levenson, attached as Exhibit A.

Although the ACLU is not a private practice with standard billing rates, “rates charged



5

for similar services in the community can be used as guidance.” Libertarian Party of

Ohio, 2013 WL 4833033 at *4.

Attached as Exhibit B is a copy of the publication, Ohio State Bar Assoc., “The

Economics of Law Practice in Ohio in 2013,” which charts attorneys’ billing rates

throughout the state, including in Columbus, Ohio, which, as the venue of this Court, is

the relevant market. It is reasonable to establish the market rates for the ACLU attorneys

in the context of these reference points.

The publication shows, in its Exhibit 46, that the median hourly billing rate for a

lawyer located in downtown Columbus is $275 per hour, and, in its Exhibit 47, that the

median hourly billing rate for an Ohio attorney specializing in the area of Civil Rights

Law is $350 per hour. In light of these parameters, the reasonable market rate for the

senior ACLU attorneys who worked on this matter, James L. Hardiman and Freda J.

Levenson, is $300/hour.

The publication also documents associates’ rates. In its Exhibit 49, it displays the

rates for associates at Columbus firms, broken down by years of experience and

percentile distribution. Interpolated from this chart, the work of Naila Awan, given her

2.3 years’ experience and billed at the median rate, is $175/hour, and that of Andrew

Harvey, with his 6 months of experience, $155/hour.

Accordingly, attached as Exhibits A, C, D, and E are the Declarations of Freda J.

Levenson, James L. Hardiman, Naila Awan, and Andrew Harvey, the four ACLU

attorneys who worked on this matter, 1 setting forth their training, background and

experience, their market rates, their time records for work reasonably performed on this

1 Note that the Declarations of two additional attorneys, Richard Saphire and Paul Moke, are also attached as Exhibits F and G, but the work of these two attorneys is not included in the lodestar computation.



6

matter, and their fees as a product of their rate times hours. The total of these fees,

$44,220.50, is the lodestar for this fee petition.

B. Applying the “Johnson Factors”

When “the product of reasonable hours time reasonable rates,” (i.e., the lodestar),

is determined, this “does not end the inquiry.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434

(1983). “Where a plaintiff has obtained excellent results, his attorney should recover a

fully compensatory fee … and indeed in some cases of exceptional success an enhanced

award may be justified … The most critical factor is the degree of success obtained.” Id.

at 435-36. However, “exceptional success” is not the only basis for awarding a fee

higher than the product of reasonable rate times reasonable hours, id., and, in fact, the

Supreme Court “expressly approves consideration of the full range of Johnson Highway

Express factors.” Id. at 449, n.8 (Brennan, J., concurring in part). Although, of course,

some of the factors may be already reflected in the attorney’s rate, and not all factors are

relevant in all cases, still, there exist some circumstances where the rate “ought to be

enhanced by some percentage factor.” Id.

The Supreme Court accordingly regards “Johnson's ‘list of 12’” as a “useful

catalog of the many factors to be considered in assessing the reasonableness of an award

of attorney's fees . . . .” Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87, 93 (1989). The twelve

factors are: (1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions;

(3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (4) the preclusion of other

employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee; (6)

whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the

circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the results obtained; (9) the experience,

reputation, and ability of the attorneys; (10) the “undesirability” of the case; (11) the



7

nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in

similar cases. Blanchard, 489 U.S. at 91 n. 5; see also Barnes v. Cincinnati, 401 F.3d 729

(6th Cir. 2013).

Several of these factors have weighed heavily on the present case, strongly

supporting an enhancement to the lodestar rate.

1. Exceptional Success Has Been Attained.

The result obtained in this matter was nothing less than a speedy and decisive

victory, justifying an enhanced rate of attorneys’ fees. Completely successful work, with

no wrong turns, merits a premium.

Not only has this matter come to a successful conclusion for the plaintiffs, but the

victory is far reaching. The ACLU, in working to vindicate the constitutional rights of

minor parties, as well as the integrity of our state’s election laws, has protected the

interest of the general public. The plaintiffs’ success is a victory for all of the voters

throughout the state who might wish to have the opportunity to vote for a minor party

candidate. Obtaining exceptionally successful results that benefit a segment of the

populace of our state further justifies an enhanced fee.

2. This Matter Imposed Extreme Time Exigencies.

The Ohio Legislature enacted S.B. 193 on the very last day possible to affect the

2014 election cycle. By that late date, GPO & CPO and their candidates had already

taken steps to participate in the 2014 primary, and the campaign season was fast

approaching. Relief, if any were to be had, needed to be on an emergency basis. GPO &

CPO’s lawyers moved post-haste to analyze the legislation, intervene, and file and

prosecute their motion for immediate injunctive relief. But even winning the injunction

did not slow the pace. Directly upon the issuance of the injunction, defendants appealed



8

and moved for an expedited briefing schedule, to which GPO & CPO were required to

respond in an accelerated briefing schedule. Only upon denial of this motion, did the

emergency-driven activity finally subside. These Johnson Factor “time limitations

imposed by the circumstances” merit an enhanced award.

3. This Case Was Taken on a Contingent Basis.

By taking this case on a contingent basis, the ACLU risked that it would dedicate

the time of four of its staff attorneys (the majority of its legal staff) to seeking redress of

the constitutional rights of its minor party clients, but at the end of the day, very possibly

recover nothing for its work. This assumption of risk justifies a premium beyond a

normal rate-times-hours fee.

4. The Difficulty and Complexity of This Litigation Required High Quality Representation.

Section 1983 litigation is complex and difficult. Due to the specialized nature of

this matter, two Constitutional Law scholars were consulted on several occasions to guide

and streamline the work of the ACLU’s staff litigators. Although these scholars,

Professors Richard Saphire and Paul Moke, filed appearances and documented their

hours, none of their hours are included in GPO & CPO’s lodestar calculation.

(Declarations of Richard Saphire and Paul Moke, attached as Exhibits F and G). Clearly,

the resulting quality and economy of the ACLU’s representation in this matter justifies a

multiplier to the lodestar.

On top of this is the fact that, putting aside the complexity of this matter, even in

the most straightforward of cases, winning a preliminary injunction is notoriously

difficult simply because of the extraordinary nature of the remedy. Service Employees



9

Intern Union Local 1 v. Husted, 698 F.3d 341, 344 (6th Cir. 2012). This circumstance

further justifies an enhancement to the lodestar.

5. The ACLU Was Precluded from Other Gainful Employment by Acceptance of This Case.

The ACLU of Ohio has a full and active docket of cases. Work performed on this

particular case necessarily took time away from work on other cases, several of which

could potentially generate fees.

IV. Applying the Johnson Factors to the Lodestar

Due to the exceptional degree of success attained, the extreme time exigencies

imposed, the risk in taking the case on a contingency basis, the complexity of the

litigation, and the preclusion from other employment, the work performed by GPO &

CPO’s attorneys, the ACLU of Ohio, merits an enhancement of the lodestar fee, leading

to the following calculation of fees and costs:

Total of Rate x Hours = Lodestar = $44,220.50

$44,220.50 x Enhancement (1.4) = $61,908.70

V. Costs

The billable costs incurred by GPO & CPO in this matter totaled $557.00.

Declaration of James L. Hardiman, Exhibit C.

VI. Possible Further Fees

GPO & CPO reserve the right to move for any additional fees that may be

incurred hereafter if they are required to expend additional time responding to any

objection that Defendants may pose to this Motion.

VII. Conclusion

For all of the reasons set forth above, this Court should grant GPC & CPO an



10

award of attorneys’ fees in the amount of $61,908.70, and costs in the amount of

$557.00.

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Freda J. Levenson Freda J. Levenson (0045916) [email protected] Jennifer Martinez Atzberger (0072114) [email protected] Drew Dennis (0089752) [email protected] ACLU of Ohio Foundation 4056 Chester Ave. Cleveland, Ohio 44103 (216) 472-2220 Richard Saphire (0017813) [email protected] University of Dayton, School of Law 300 College Park Dayton, Ohio 45469 Paul Moke (0014099) [email protected] Wilmington College 1252 Tyler Center Wilmington, Ohio 45177 (937) 725-7501

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that this Memorandum was electronically filed this 25th day of

February, 2014, using the Court’s electronic filing system, which will provide copies to

all counsel of record.

/s/ Freda J. Levenson

Freda J. Levenson



EXHIBIT A

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF OHIO, et al., : CASE NO. 2:13-cv-953

: Plaintiffs, : : : JUDGE MICHAEL H. WATSON vs. :

: JON A. HUSTED, : OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE, et al. :

: Defendants. :

DECLARATION OF FREDA J. LEVENSON (pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746)

I, Freda J. Levenson, hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the following are true

and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief:

1. I am above the age of 18 and reside in Ohio.

2. I have personal knowledge about the matters to which I attest.

3. I am the Managing Attorney of the ACLU of Ohio Foundation (“ACLU”), and co-

counsel of record to the Intervening Plaintiffs in the above-styled case.

4. The ACLU is a non-profit organization that relies upon membership and contributions,

augmented by awards of attorneys’ fees when available, to fund its operations.

5. I am licensed to practice law in Ohio and Illinois, and am further licensed to practice in

the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio and the United States

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

6. I have been licensed since 1976 in Illinois and 1990 in Ohio.



7. My resume detailing my professional qualifications is attached as Exhibit A-1.

8. I have invested 29.8 hours in representing Intervening Plaintiffs in the above-styled case.

9. I kept contemporaneous time records in the above-styled case in six minute increments.

10. I exercised billing judgment to exclude time that was not reasonably related to the

successful prosecution of the case and to exclude time for small tasks that did not total at

least six minutes. Time expended in writing and reading a number of email

communications, both written and received by me, and short conversations with co-

counsel and others, are not included in my contemporaneous records.

11. My contemporaneous time records for tasks performed in the above-styled case are as

follows:

DATE SERVICES HOURS

12/3/13 Reviewed and edited Motion to Intervene .80

12/5/13 Telephone call with client (Erwin) .50

12/5/13 Drafted Plaintiff declaration .90

12/5/13 Drafted email to client .10

12/7/13 Telephone call with client (Erwin) .20

12/20/13 Reviewed case file .80

12/20/13 Researched and prepared Complaint 5.40

12/21/13 Prepared Complaint 6.30



12/23/13 Reviewed, edited, revised Reply Memo (Motion for TRO) 3.70

1/3/14 Telephone conference with co-counsel .50



1/4/14 Reviewed and responded to talking points for oral hearing .70

1/5/14 Phone conference with co-counsel .70

1/13/14 Phone conference with co-counsel .50

1/13/14 Prepared memo re: phone call .30

1/13/14 Reviewed memo re: Motion to Expedite Appeal 1.20

1/13/14 Researched appellate rules .10

1/13/14 Reviewed, revised, edited Memo in Response to Motion to

Expedite 1.20

1/17/14 Researched attorney’s fee award .20

1/17/14 Prepared email re: attorney’s fees .10

1/26/14 Reviewed docket report .10

1/29/14 Prepared 6th Circuit Notice of Appearance .20

1/30/14 Telephone call to 6th Circuit Clerk .10

1/30/14 Called, emailed co-counsel Brown N/C

1/30/14 Telephone call with mediator .10

1/30/14 Email to mediator .10

1/30/14 Prepared requests for filing info, researched attorney’s fees .20

1/30/14 Conference with Andrew Harvey .20

2/5/14 Telephone call with co-counsel Brown .10

12. My reasonable hourly rate for §1983 litigation is $300.00 per hour.

13. The lodestar figure for my services, determined by multiplying my reasonable hours

(29.8) by my reasonable rate ($300.00), comes to $8,940.00.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.



Executed on February 24, 2014.

/s/ Freda J. Levenson______ Freda J. Levenson



The Economics of Law Practice in Ohio in 2013

A Desktop Reference

Case: 2:13-cv-00953-MHW-TPK Doc #: 54-2 Filed: 02/25/14 Page: 1 of 70 PAGEID #: 881EXHIBIT B


© 2013 Ohio State Bar Association. All rights reserved. 2

Introduction .................................................................................. 2

Methods and Measures ................................................................. 3

PROFILE OF TYPICAL OHIO ATTORNEY AND FIRM

Private Practitioners ...................................................................... Exhibit 1 Government Lawyers .................................................................... Exhibit 2 House Counsel .............................................................................. Exhibit 3 Position or Practice Setting ........................................................... Exhibit 4

PROFILE OF ATTORNEY 2012 NET INCOME

Private Practitioners

Practice Class .......................................................................... Exhibits 24, 26, 28 Years of Practice ....................................................................... Exhibits 30, 35 Field of Law .............................................................................. Exhibits 32, 33 Firm Size .................................................................................. Exhibit 36 Office Location ......................................................................... Exhibits 37, 38 Gender ..................................................................................... Exhibits 41, 42

Government Lawyers

Practice Class .......................................................................... Exhibits 25, 27, 29 Years of Practice ....................................................................... Exhibits 31, 35 Field of Law .............................................................................. Exhibits 34 Firm Size .................................................................................. Exhibit 36 Office Location ......................................................................... Exhibits 40 Gender ..................................................................................... Exhibits 41, 42

House Counsel

Practice Class .......................................................................... Exhibits 25, 27, 29 Years of Practice ....................................................................... Exhibits 31, 35 Field of Law .............................................................................. Exhibits 34 Firm Size .................................................................................. Exhibit 36 Office Location ......................................................................... Exhibits 39 Gender ..................................................................................... Exhibits 41, 42

Table of ContentsNot all exhibits are referenced in this table of contents.

Please see pages 68-69 for a complete list of exhibits.



THE ECONOMICS OF LAW PRACTICE IN OHIO IN 2013 A DESKTOP REFERENCE


PROFILE OF BILLING RATES AND PRACTICES

Attorney Billing Rates Years of Practice ....................................................................... Exhibit 46 Firm Size .................................................................................. Exhibits 46, 51 Office Location ......................................................................... Exhibit 46 Field of Law .............................................................................. Exhibit 47

Associate Billing Rates

Years of Practice ....................................................................... Exhibits 48, 49 Firm Size .................................................................................. Exhibit 51 Office Location ......................................................................... Exhibit 49

Paralegal Billing Rates

Years of Experience .................................................................. Exhibits 48, 50 Firm Size .................................................................................. Exhibit 52 Office Location ......................................................................... Exhibit 50

PROFILE OF WORKWEEK AND TIME-KEEPING PRACTICES

Average Hours in Workweek ......................................................... Exhibit 54 Hourly / Flat Fee / Contingency ..................................................... Exhibit 55 Non-Billable Work ......................................................................... Exhibit 56

PROFILE OF LAW OFFICE MANAGEMENT TRENDS

Likelihood of Occurrence .............................................................. Exhibits 58-60 Keeping Time Records .................................................................. Exhibits 61-62 Hourly Rate Setting ....................................................................... Exhibits 63-64 Uncollectable Fees ........................................................................ Exhibits 65-66 Contingency Fee Practices ............................................................ Exhibits 67-68 Use of Online Research Tools ........................................................ Exhibits 69-71 Use of Law Office Technology ....................................................... Exhibits 72-74

OTHER ASPECTS OF LAW OFFICE ECONOMICS

Client Fee Payment Behavior ......................................................... Exhibit 75 Law Office Overhead and Gross Receipts ...................................... Exhibit 76-77

Associate Salaries Years of Experience .................................................................. Exhibit 78 Firm Size .................................................................................. Exhibit 79 Office Location ......................................................................... Exhibit 80

Paralegal Salaries Years of Experience .................................................................. Exhibit 78 Firm Size .................................................................................. Exhibit 81 Office Location ......................................................................... Exhibit 82

Secretary Salaries Years of Experience .................................................................. Exhibit 78 Firm Size .................................................................................. Exhibit 83 Office Location ......................................................................... Exhibit 84

List of Exhibits ............................................................................... 68-69




During the spring of 2013, the Ohio State Bar Association (“OSBA”), surveyed the Ohio legal community on the economics of law practice. Previous studies were conducted in 2010, 2007, 2004, 2001,1998,1994 and 1990. The objectives of all of these studies were to derive and report useful and usable information on:

Changing patterns of attorney demographics

Attorney income by practice category/class, gender, field of law, office location, work status (full- vs. part-time work), years in practice and firm/organization size;

Associate, paralegal, and secretary salaries by years of experience and office location;

Prevailing hourly billing rates for attorneys by a variety of indicators, and paralegals by years of experience, firm size and office location;

Attorney time allocated to billable and non-billable professional activities;

Revenues, expenses, and overhead rates for private practitioners by office location and firm size;

Law practice management trends over time, and

Issues on economic sentiment and job satisfaction

To help guide attorneys as they plan and manage their professional lives, the above information has been consolidated into this reference document. Based on 84 tables, charts and graphs, attorneys and firms can compare themselves and their firms against “norms” established by the aggregation of survey data. This reference is not intended for use in setting minimum, average, or maximum attorney fees or salaries. It is intended to serve as one of several resources and factors in determining law office best practices and policies.

Assistance with interpreting and applying information can be obtained at no charge to OSBA members by contacting Dr. Lawrence Stiffman of the Applied Statistics Laboratory (ASL) of Ann Arbor, Michigan, at (734) 369-6052 or e-mail him at [email protected]. ASL conducted the three surveys, analyzed derived data and prepared this Desktop Reference.

Introduction





Methods and MeasuresSurvey results are based on online surveys fielded during April and May, 2013, targeting private practitioners, house counsel and government lawyers. Each target group was surveyed three times reaching 19,328 potential in-state/non-retiree respondents with current e-mail addresses. There were about 1,500 usable returns.

To help practitioners interpret the information provided in the exhibits below, here is a brief description of measures of central tendency (median and mean) and dispersion (spread).

Measures of Central TendencyThe mean (also called the average or arithmetic average) is calculated by adding the values of all responses, then dividing by the number of responses.

EXAMPLE: Three responses – 1, 2 and 3 – are reported. The average is calculated by adding their values (1 + 2 + 3 = 6), then dividing by the number of responses or 6 ÷ 3 = 2.

The median is the middle value of a series of values, which is initially rank-ordered (from low to high or vice versa). By definition, half the numbers are greater and half are less than the median. Both mean and median values are used throughout this survey report to measure central tendency.

Use of the median as a statistic for central tendency reduces the effect of “outliers” (extremely high or low values, such as 30), while the average does not.

EXAMPLE: Three responses – 1, 2 and 30 – are reported. The median is the middle number of the distribution (1, 2, 30) or 2. The average of this same distribution is 33 divided by 3 = 11.

Measures of Dispersion (Spread)The dispersion of data around the median (the 50th percentile) generally is based on 3 values:

25th percentile (lower quartile) – 25% of the values are less and 75% are more than this value 75th percentile (upper quartile) – 75% of the values are less and 25% are more than this value 95th percentile – 95% of the values are less and five percent are more than this value

Geographic Areas DefinedSixteen geographic areas were included to indicate office location. Some exhibits in this reference include all sixteen areas, while most display fewer, collapsed regions to maintain a reasonable number of observations for reporting findings. Regions are defined as follows:

Region Geographic areas included:

Greater Cleveland Downtown only / Suburban areasGreater Cincinnati Downtown only / Suburban areas Greater Columbus Downtown only / Suburban areasDaytonNortheast Region Canton, Akron, Youngstown and other Northeastern Ohio areasNorthwest Region Toledo and other Northwestern cities and areasSouthern Region Includes Southeastern, Southwestern and Central Regions, excluding cities named above





Interpreting FindingsBecause the survey was conducted in the spring of 2013, net income, gross revenue and overhead expense represent 2012 values. All other data represent 2013 values. Net income represents all personal income from legal work (after expenses) or salaries from the practice of law, before taxes, for 2012. Bonus information was not addressed as a separate question and may or may not have been included by respondents.

To denote gaps such as the “gender gap” of reported incomes, the term “gap” is used on selected exhibits as a proportion calculated as the median value of one group divided by another. Hypothetically, a reported income of $75,000 for a group of female attorneys divided by $100,000 for a like group of male attorneys yields the proportion of .75. This could be interpreted in plain English as “This group of females earns 75 cents on the dollar compared with their male counterparts.”

Despite the use of the median to reduce the effect of extremely high or low values (“outliers”), readers should use particular caution in interpreting data when only a small number of responses are available. In such cases, readers are advised to “group up” to a larger geographic area or practice category, to not distort reality. Generally, no value is represented if fewer than 4 responses were reported. In some instances, an exhibit may list fewer than 4 responses if the data were deemed important enough, with the understanding that the reader should use care when drawing inferences from such a small sample. Personnel planning and decision-making include many factors not covered in surveys of this scope or nature. However, this report provides ranges of values that can help in developing sound and equitable hiring and compensation policies.

Margins of Error and Representativeness of SampleMargins of error (sampling error) are provided for: attorney 2012 mean net income (plus or minus 3 percent of the mean value), attorney 2013 mean hourly billing rates (plus or minus 2 percent), and mean total hours worked (accounted for) in the average 2013 work week (plus or minus 2 percent).





Summary Profiles of the Typical Ohio Attorney and Firm

This section summarizes key statistics derived from the current and recent surveys. Emphasis here is on the concerns of the “average” attorney and the “average” firm with respect to shifting demographics, and core relationships of income, hourly billing rates, time expenditure and resultant practice and firm revenues and expenses.

Membership DemographicsExhibits 1 to 3 summarize the average years in practice and 2012 attorney net income of three classes of attorneys: private practitioners, government lawyers (including the judiciary) and house counsel. These three groups of respondents are stratified by work status, gender and office location.

EXHIBIT 1 Selected Summary Demographics – Private Practitioners

YEARS IN PRACTICE 2012 NET INCOME

PRIVATE PRACTITIONERS By Work Status N Mean Median N Mean Median

Full-time females 239 16.7 15 220 $98,411 $80,000Part-time females 56 16.7 17 46 $43,394 $39,300All females 295 16.7 15 266 $88,897 $70,000

Full-time males 679 26.3 29 630 $170,254 $120,000Part-time males 99 31 37 85 $59,498 $45,000All males 778 26.9 30 715 $157,087 $110,000

All full-time 918 23.8 26 850 $151,660 $105,000All part-time 155 25.9 29 131 $53,843 $44,000 All Respondents 1,103 24.1 26 981 $138,597 $100,000

By Office Location

Greater Cleveland 229 23.6 25 206 $154,755 $101,000Greater Cincinnati 132 24.5 28 118 $140,278 $102,500Greater Columbus 210 24.2 27 195 $152,369 $105,000Greater Dayton 63 23 23 54 $145,902 $110,000Northeast Region 176 23.1 24 163 $111,403 $83,000Northwest Region 138 25.5 28 129 $116,593 $85,000Southern Region 132 24.9 27 124 $143,516 $93,500 All Respondents 1,103 24.1 26 989 $138,542 $100,000





EXHIBIT 2 Selected Summary Demographics – Government Lawyers


GOVERNMENT LAWYERS By Work Status N Mean Median N Mean Median

Full-time females 154 17.4 17 150 $77,914 $68,000Part-time females 9 23.3 21 8 $59,250 $53,500All females 163 17.7 17 158 $76,969 $65,000

Full-time males 138 23.9 26 135 $84,751 $80,000Part-time males 6 30.2 29 4 $44,500 $44,500All males 144 24.2 27 139 $83,593 $80,000

All full-time 292 20.5 20 285 $81,152 $73,000All part-time 15 26.1 27 12 $54,333 $51,000 All Respondents 316 21.1 21 297 $80,068 $72,000

By Office Location

Greater Cleveland 30 20.8 23 30 $107,517 $86,000Greater Cincinnati 20 23 25 19 $81,979 $76,000Greater Columbus 71 19.5 22 70 $88,567 $83,000Greater Dayton 21 20.7 18 21 $68,762 $5,000Northeast Region 63 21.9 22 60 $71,112 $71,000Northwest Region 44 22.3 24 43 $73,158 $68,000Southern Region 56 20.7 20 53 $70,964 $65,000 All Respondents 316 21.1 21 296 $79,431 $72,000

EXHIBIT 3 Selected Summary Demographics – House Counsel


HOUSE COUNSEL By Work Status N Mean Median N Mean Median

Full-time females 51 13 12 44 $121,272 $110,000Part-time females 5 25 24 3 $134,000 $145,000All females 56 14 13 47 $122,085 $110,000

Full-time males 82 22.6 24 78 $161,367 $130,000Part-time males 3 23 28 3 $92,667 $73,000All males 85 22.6 24 81 $158,822 $130,000

All full-time 133 18.9 17 122 $146,906 $121,000All part-time 3 23 28 3 $92,667 $73,000 All Respondents 141 19.2 18 125 $145,605 $120,000

By Office Location

Greater Cleveland 32 22.5 26 26 $156,115 $127,500Greater Cincinnati 19 15.5 13 18 $122,222 $117,500Greater Columbus 34 20.1 21 31 $146,193 $135,000Greater Dayton 8 21.1 22 8 $225,438 $135,000Northeast Region 19 17.7 19 19 $100,447 $95,000Northwest Region 11 16.1 12 9 $171,111 $122,000Southern Region 10 21.3 20 10 $126,300 $117,500 All Respondents 141 19.2 18 121 $143,025 $120,000





Exhibit 4 ranks respondents’ practice class by gender. About 67% of State government lawyers are female, while 13% of small-firm partners are female.

EXHIBIT 4 Ranked Distribution of Survey Respondents by Practice Class

25.0%75.0%

32.7%67.3%

36.4%63.6%

40.0%60.0%

41.4%58.6%

41.5%58.5%

46.4%53.6%

49.5%50.5%

50.0%50.0%

50.0%50.0%

54.5%45.5%

59.8%40.2%

60.0%40.0%

60.5%39.5%

62.7%37.3%

63.1%36.9%

63.2%36.8%

64.4%35.6%

66.7%33.3%

68.8%31.2%

71.7%28.3%

72.6%27.4%

73.0%27.0%

77.8%22.2%

78.8%21.2%

81.9%18.1%

86.7%13.3%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

¢ Female ¢ Male

All Private Practitioners

Of Counsel

Partner in Firm with 8+ Partners

Partner in Firm with 2-7 Partners

Federal Government

Solo with 1+ Associate

Judge / Magistrate (full-time)

Assistant GC

CLO or General Counsel (GC)

Solo, Office Outside Home

Solo, Home Office

Space Sharer

House Counsel

Contact Attorney / Consultant

Counsel

Associate in Firm with 2-7 Partners

All House Counsel

City Government

State Government / Legislative Attorney

Associate with Sole Practitioner

All Government Lawyers

County Government

Associate in Firm with 8+ Partners

Law Clerk

State Government / Other

Legal Services Agency

Senior Counsel





Exhibit 5 distributes counts of respondents by gender across practice class showing the proportion of each major practice category to the overall bar population. Male private practitioners dominate the respondent database.

EXHIBIT 5 Distribution of Respondents by Practice Class and Gender

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Solos/Space Sharers

Legal Services

General or Senior Counsel

Assistant, Deputy or

Division GC

Law ClerkState Government

Firms Local Government

Judiciary

¢ Female ¢ Male

137

325

151

445

2644 55 61

38 255154719

362335

Exhibit 6 distributes survey respondents by gender and work status. While 7 percent of male private practitioners work part-time, 5 percent of female private practitioners work part-time. Most attorneys who report that they practice part-time are sole practitioners/space sharers.

EXHIBIT 6 Distribution of Survey Respondents by Practice Class and Gender – All Practice Classes

¢ Female working full-time

¢ Female working part-time

¢ Male working full-time

¢ Male working part-time

7%

29%

59%

5%





2012 Attorney Income Compared with 2009Median 2012 net income reported for all respondents is $95,872 (up from $84,000 reported for 2009).This value is a weighted average (by count) combining three classes of attorneys: private practitioners, government lawyers (including judges and judiciary staff) and house counsel.

Median 2012 net income reported for private practitioner respondents working full-time is $100,000 (up from $89,000 in 2009). Mean (average) net income for private practitioner respondents working full-time is $151,660 (up from $112,983 in 2009).

2013 Hourly Billing Rates and Work Volume Compared with 2010The 2010 reported median hourly billing rate is $207 (up from $200 in 2010). The mean value is $234 (up from $211 in 2010). The median hourly rate reported by male attorneys working full-time is $225, while it is $200 for female attorneys working full-time.

Median values for private practitioner compensable work time is 33 hours/week (down from 34 hours in 2010) and 48 hours/week for total professional hours worked (up from 47 hours per week in 2010).

Detailed and longer term trend analyses for incomes, billing rates and time allocations are summarized as Exhibit 23 found at the end of this section.

2006 vs. 2012 Office Expenditures and Revenues Both office expenditures and gross revenues, on a per-attorney basis, vary across a wide distribution of private practitioners as shown in Exhibits 7 and 8. There is a drift to lower overall reported expenses per attorney and revenues per attorney since 2006).

EXHIBIT 7 Percent Distribution of Per Attorney Fixed Expenses, Ohio Practices and Firms | 2006-2012

<$5K $5-14.9K

$15-24.9K

>$180K$150-179.9K

$120-149.9K

$90-119.9K

$60-89.9K

$45-59.9K

$35-44.9K

$25-34.9K

¢ CY 2006 ¢ CY 2009 ¢ CY 2012

0

5

10

15

20

25





EXHIBIT 8 Percent Distribution of Per Attorney Gross Revenues, Ohio Practices and Firms | 2006-2012

$35-69.9K

<$35K $70-104.9K

$500K+$300-$499.9K

$245-299.9K

$210-244.9K

$175-209.9K

$140-174.9K

$105-139.9K

¢ CY 2006 ¢ CY 2009 ¢ CY 2012

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Trends in Income, Hour Billing Rates and Time Expended, 2000-2013Exhibit 9 highlights an upward turning point in 2012 ending the drop in nominal income over the past decade considering four categories of attorneys.

EXHIBIT 9 Percent Change in Four Categories of Attorney Net Income | 2000-2012

All Attorneys (Full-time Only) Private Practitioners (Full-time Only)-10.0%

-5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

¢ 2000-2003 ¢ 2003-2006 ¢ 2006-2009 ¢ 2009-2012





Exhibit 10 highlights shifts in pricing power over the past decade isolating the effects of work-status and gender. In the beginning of the decade, hourly billing rates rose 16.7% for full-time males, then dropping to an 8.6% increase mid-decade, then down to only a 6.3% increase at the end of the decade. The slide in billing rate percent change in the 2010-2013 reporting period recovers more dramatically for males than females, working full-time. See Exhibit 23.

EXHIBIT 10 Percent Change in Hourly Billing Rates by Gender | 2001-2013

Full-time Males Full-time Females

¢ 2001-2004 ¢ 2004-2007 ¢ 2007-2010 ¢ 2010-2013

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

For full-time private practitioners, over the last decade, compensable time held more or less constant at 35 hours for all private practitioners while total hours worked also held at 50 hours. Pricing power remained, throughout all reporting periods as reflected by the increasing average hourly billing rate. See Exhibit 11.

EXHIBIT 11 Changes in Reported Workloads and Hourly Billing Rates | 2001-2013

2001 2004 2007 2010 2013

¢ Billable Hours � Total Hours p Hourly Billing Rate

30

35

40

45

50

55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250





Economic Sentiment and Job SatisfactionExhibit 12 indicates current and future perceptions on economic conditions with current and future levels of job satisfaction for three categories of attorneys. Private practitioners are both optimistic and pessimistic with current conditions compared to the past but are more optimistic about future conditions. With respect to job satisfaction, government lawyers are more satisfied about their jobs, while house counsel are relatively more satisfied about their future job satisfaction.

EXHIBIT 12 Summary of Economic Sentiment and Job Satisfaction Levels, Three Categories of Attorneys | 2013

Current Conditions Private Practice % House Counsel % Government %

Better 28.4 36.6 17.8Worse 23 6.3 20About the same 45.9 54.9 59.4Don't know 0.4 0.7 2.9NA / New attorney 2.4 1.4 — Total 100% 100% 100%

Future Conditions

Better 38.4 37.1 15.8Worse 13.4 9.8 16.1About the same 39.5 46.9 59.2Don't know / No opinion 8.7 6.3 9 Total 100% 100% 100%

Current Satisfaction

A great deal 48.6 49.3 67.3Some 43 45.1 29.2Very little 8.4 5.6 3.5 Total 100% 100% 100%

Future Satisfaction

Becoming more satisfying 15.5 23.2 16.9Remaining the same 59.7 62.7 70.8Becoming less satisfying 17.6 10.6 8.4Ready to change practice area 3.1 0.7 1.6Unsatisfying enough to quit practicing 4.1 2.8 2.3 Total 100% 100% 100%





Exhibit 13 provides total cell distributions linking respondents’ current with future perceptions on economic conditions. Government lawyers are least optimistic, while house counsel the most.

EXHIBIT 13 Shifts in Sentiment on Economic Conditions | 2013 and 2014

FUTURE CONDITIONS

CURRENT CONDITIONS About Don't Know/ Private Practitioners Better Worse the Same No Opinion Total

Better 19.2% 0.6% 6.7% 1.7% 28.3%Worse 5.0% 7.9% 7.8% 2.3% 23.0%About the same 12.2% 4.7% 24.7% 4.4% 46.0%Don't know 0.2% — — 0.2% 0.4%NA / New attorney 1.7% 0.2% 0.4% 0.1% 2.4% Total 38.3% 13.4% 39.5% 8.7% 100.0%

House Counsel

Better 23.2% 0.7% 9.2% 3.5% 36.6%Worse 2.1% 1.4% 2.8% — 6.3%About the same 10.6% 7.7% 35.2% 1.4% 54.9%Don't know — — — 0.7% 0.7%NA / New attorney 0.7% — — 0.7% 1.4% Total 36.6% 9.9% 47.2% 6.3% 100.0%

Government

Better 8.4% 0.6% 8.4% 0.6% 18.0%Worse 1.6% 10.3% 7.1% 1.3% 20.3%About the same 5.5% 4.8% 42.4% 6.1% 58.8%Don't know 0.3% 0.3% 1.3% 1.0% 2.9% Total 15.8% 16.1% 59.2% 9.0% 100.0%

Factors Potentially Influencing Decisions to Switch to New Practice Areas or Job ClassPrivate practitioners express relatively more interest in quality of life issues than technical requirements or market supply-demand conditions when considering job switching.

EXHIBIT 14 Ranking of Agreement on Factors Influencing Switching Practice Area / Job Class, Private Practitioners | 2013

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

78

48

54

61

55

61

54

45

38

5

22

11

8

13

7

6

12

9

14

23

28

23

24

21

30

30

32

3

7

7

8

8

10

11

13

22

¢ Very Much Agree ¢ Agree ¢ Do Not Agree ¢ NA / Don’t Know

New content area too complex to quickly learn and master

Incumbents have flooded the market where I currently practice

Incumbents have likely or will flood other markets

My computer skills are insufficient to leverage software apps

Court rules and/or administrative regs too tedious

Essential new marketing costs are too high

Switching to salaried legal work is appealing

Getting too old to switch

Having insurance benefits with a government or in-house counsel job is appealing





Government lawyers and house counsel show similar sentiments. (Exhibits 15 and 16).

EXHIBIT 15 Ranking of Agreement on Factors Influencing Switching Practice Area / Job Class, Government Lawyers | 2013

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

75

66

38

47

55

59

49

24

10

12

12

35

30

23

13

11

42

23

12

20

23

18

16

22

29

21

34

2

2

4

5

5

6

11

13

33

¢ Very Much Agree ¢ Agree ¢ Do Not Agree ¢ NA / Don’t know

New content area too complex toquickly learn and master

Incumbents have flooded the marketwhere I currently practice


My computer skills are insufficientto leverage software apps





Having insurance benefits with a governmentor in-house counsel job is appealing

EXHIBIT 16 Ranking of Agreement on Factors Influencing Switching Practice Area / Job Class, Government Lawyers | 2013

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

4

36

17

6

20

15

5

37

21

87

46

60

72

51

59

66

17

13

7

14

18

16

21

16

20

26

34

2

4

5

6

8

9

9

19

33

¢ Very Much Agree ¢ Agree ¢ Do Not Agree ¢ NA / Don’t know

Incumbents have flooded the marketwhere I currently practice



My computer skills are insufficientto leverage software apps

New content area too complex toquickly learn and master




Having insurance benefits with a governmentor in-house counsel job is appealing





Relative Importance of Factors Perceived to Create Job-Related StressPrivate practitioners are relatively more concerned about fringe benefit costs and workload management than government lawyers and house counsel, the latter two groups are relatively more concerned about office politics. See Exhibits 17 to 19.

EXHIBIT 17 Ranked Factors Perceived to Create Job-Related Stress, Private Practitioners | 2013

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

59

58

51

48

39

52

47

44

40

47

36

34

37

29

29

29

25

5

11

25

24

11

15

5

4

17

4

8

3

7

2

9

12

32

29

17

27

26

27

36

41

20

43

34

35

37

41

30

4

5

10

10

10

11

12

15

15

15

17

24

24

27

29

32

¢ Very Much ¢ Somewhat ¢ Very Little ¢ Not Applicable

General judicial environment

Time and effort managing employees

Technological requirements and know how

Unauthorized practice of law

Office/agency politics

Dealing with government agencies

Insufficient level of retirement benefits

Competition in your legal market

Lack of professionalism

General political environment

Insufficient level of health insurance benefits

Dealing with difficult clients

Insufficient current income

Work/Family life imbalances

Cost of health insurance and out-of-pocket expenses

Time and effort managing workload





EXHIBIT 18 Ranked Factors Perceived to Create Job-Related Stress, Government Lawyers | 2013

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

57

50

60

51

64

50

55

38

33

48

45

48

32

36

34

38

34

29

5

12

13

4

8

26

23

7

7

2

7

3

1

4

8

17

31

30

15

37

27

26

33

31

33

34

40

39

42

35

2

4

4

7

9

9

9

11

12

14

15

16

21

22

23

24






Dealing with other government agencies


Work-family life imbalances

Cost of health insurance & out-of-pocket expenses













EXHIBIT 19 Ranked Factors Perceived to Create Job-Related Stress, House Counsel | 2013

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

56

60

72

48

52

46

55

40

44

45

50

38

43

44

23

29

37

20

6

12

14

16

15

22

13

10

10

4

10

11

1

2

7

18

20

34

25

28

20

29

34

34

28

44

32

30

46

37

1

2

3

6

8

9

9

9

9

11

12

14

15

15

30

32






Dealing with government agencies








Cost of health insurance & out-of-pocket expenses


Work-family life imbalances


Civic Engagement ProfileAttorneys broadly represent themselves as community leaders. Exhibits 20 to 22 rank OSBA member’s involvement in bar-related, civic and business leadership roles and functions throughout Ohio.

EXHIBIT 20 Percent Distributions of Private Practitioners’ Involvement in Bar, Corporate, Community and Civic Affairs | 2013

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

90

83

78

62

47

24

31

7

9

12

13

17

19

25

3

8

10

25

36

57

44

¢ Yes, Currently ¢ Yes, Previously ¢ Never

Active in local and state general bar association

Active in local and state specialty bar association

Board member of any for-profit corporation

Serving as an elected public official

Membership in your local chamber of commerce

Serving as an appointed public official

Board member of any non-profit corporation





EXHIBIT 21 Percent Distributions Of Government Lawyers’ Involvement In Bar, Corporate, Community and Civic Affairs | 2013

26

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

89

85

85

59

61

38

23

7

8

6

17

13

21

3

6

10

25

26

36

57









EXHIBIT 22 Percent Distributions of House Counsel Involvement in Bar, Corporate, Community and Civic Affairs | 2013

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

93

94

82

89

56

46

35

4

2

12

4

17

22

24

3

4

6

7

27

32

41













Exhibit 23 is a summary of changes between reporting periods and on an annual basis. Median values are displayed.

EXHIBIT 23 Summary of Income, Billing Rate and Time Expenditure Changes | 2000 - 2013

MEDIAN ANNUAL % CHANGE

Net Income 2012* 2009 2006 2003 2000 2000-2003 2003-2006 2006-2009 2009-2012

All Attorneys $95,872 $84,000 $85,000 $80,000 $75,000 2.2% 2.1% -0.4% 4.7% (Full-time only) $96,173 $90,000 $88,500 $85,000 $80,000 2.1% 1.4% 0.6% 2.3%All Private Practitioners $100,000 $89,000 $95,000 $90,000 $70,000 9.5% 1.9% -2.1% 4.1% (Full-time only) $105,000 $94,750 $98,000 $100,000 $82,000 7.3% -0.7% -1.1% 3.6%Full-time Males $114,520 $100,000 $100,000 $94,500 $85,000 3.7% 1.9% 0.0% 4.8%Full-time Females $78,841 $74,000 $70,000 $70,000 $55,000 9.1% 0.0% 1.9% 2.2%Part-time Males $45,891 $38,000 $80,000 $50,000 $31,000 20.4% 20.0% -17.5% 6.9%Part-time Females $46,856 $45,000 $45,000 $30,000 $30,000 0.0% 16.7% 0.0% 1.4%

Average Hourly Billing Rate 2013 2010 2007 2004 2001 2001-2004 2004-2007 2007-2010 2010-2013

All Private Practitioners $207 $200 $185 $175 $150 5.6% 1.9% 2.7% 1.2% (Full-time only) $220 $200 $185 $175 $150 5.6% 1.9% 2.7% 3.3%Full-time Males $225 $200 $190 $175 $150 5.6% 2.9% 1.8% 4.2%Full-time Females $200 $195 $175 $160 $125 9.3% 3.1% 3.8% 0.9%Part-time Males $195 $183 $190 $160 $130 7.7% 6.3% -1.2% 2.2%Part-time Females $175 $150 $150 $125 $125 0.0% 6.7% 0.0% 5.6%

Total Hours in Workweek 2013 2010 2007 2004 2001 2001-2004 2004-2007 2007-2010 2010-2013

All Private Practitioners 48 47 50 50 47 2.1% 0.0% -2.0% 0.7% (Full-time only) 50 50 50 50 48 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%Full-time Males 50 50 50 50 48 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%Full-time Females 48 45 50 45 45 0.0% 3.7% -3.3% 2.2%Part-time Males 30 30 40 36 34 2.0% 3.7% 8.3% 0.0%Part-time Females 25 28 30 30 39 -7.7% 0.0% -2.2% -3.6%

Billable Hours in Workweek 2013 2010 2007 2004 2001 2001-2004 2004-2007 2007-2010 2010-2013

All Private Practitioners 33 34 35 35 35 0.0% 0.0% -1.0% -1.0% (Full-time only) 35 35 35 40 35 4.8% -4.2% 0.0% 0.0%Full-time Males 35 35 35 36 35 1.0% -0.9% 0.0% 0.0%Full-time Females 34 33 35 35 35 0.0% 0.0% -1.9% 1.0%Part-time Males 15 18 25 14 15 -2.2% 26.2% -9.3% -5.6%Part-time Females 18 20 20 14 20 -10.0% 14.3% 0.0% -3.3%*weighted average





Profiling Ohio Attorney 2012 Net Income

Introduction Many interacting factors impact attorney income. Clues to explain income variation, both at a given point in time and across time, can be derived from seven factors addressed in the survey and summarized below:

Practice category or classification/class Primary field of law or area of specialization Years in practice Gender Firm size (number of attorneys in firm or organization) Office location (county where law office is located) Work status (full-time versus part-time)

2012 Income by Practice Class and Field of Law Exhibit 24 summarizes 2012 attorney net income by eleven practice categories reported by 1,112 private practitioner respondents (denoted by N). Exhibit 25 covers government lawyers and house counsel.

By convention, this and subsequent exhibits providing percentile information, offer four data points – the 25th, 50th (Median), 75th and 95th percentiles – on the variable (item) of interest.

For example, 25 percent of all space sharers earn less than $50,000, half earn less than $77,000, while half earn more than $77,000 and 25 percent earn more than $185,000. The “range” of net income is large within groups – for example, from $149,00 for partners in firms with 8+ partners at the 25th percentile to $520,000 at the 95th percentile level.

EXHIBIT 24 2012 Private Practitioner Net Income by Practice Class

VALUE BY PERCENTILE

25th 75th 95th Private Practitioners N Mean Percentile Median Percentile Percentile

Solo, office outside home 249 $91,791 $45,000 $75,000 $120,000 $225,000Solo, home office 107 50,632 12,500 35,000 72,000 160,000Solo with 1+ associate 49 159,735 100,000 150,000 200,000 325,000Space sharer 22 165,455 50,000 77,000 185,000 400,000Partner in firm with 2-7 partners 235 199,811 90,000 125,000 200,000 520,000Partner in firm with 8+ partners 131 255,501 149,000 200,000 315,000 520,000Of Counsel 31 107,774 50,000 100,000 145,000 215,000Contact attorney / Consultant 5 89,800 53,000 60,000 86,000 200,000Associate with sole practitioner 27 63,250 45,000 60,000 85,000 100,000Associate in firm with 2-7 partners 75 84,064 55,000 65,000 100,000 200,000Associate in firm with 8+ partners 52 94,779 73,500 100,000 117,500 135,000 Total 994 $139,138 $57,000 $100,000 $165,000 $375,000





EXHIBIT 25 2012 Government Lawyer and House Counsel Net Income by Practice Class

VALUE BY PERCENTILE

25th 75th 95th Government Lawyers N Mean Percentile Median Percentile Percentile

Judge / Magistrate (full-time) 64 $86,890 $70,000 $78,175 $117,500 $122,000City government 29 83,241 58,000 75,000 95,000 135,000State government / AG office 85 68,250 50,000 62,000 75,000 115,000State government / Leg. attorney 5 74,200 48,000 50,000 104,000 121,000State government / Other 53 98,295 69,000 87,000 92,000 160,000Law clerk 19 59,424 50,000 58,916 69,000 100,000Legal services agency 11 70,591 56,000 61,500 95,000 109,000Federal government 8 120,500 93,500 121,500 144,500 160,000 Total 284 $81,093 $58,000 $72,500 $93,000 $125,000

House Counsel

CLO or General Counsel (GC) 30 $195,163 $120,000 $158,500 $220,000 $500,000Senior Counsel 23 169,348 125,000 150,000 200,000 316,000Assistant GC 18 136,667 90,000 115,000 150,000 350,000Counsel 35 90,949 70,000 90,000 115,000 140,000 Total 111 $148,298 $92,000 $123,600 $175,000 $325,000

2012 Full-Private Practitioner Net Income By Practice Class Exhibit 26 includes only 846 private practitioners who report working on a full-time basis. Exhibit 27 includes government lawyers and house counsel.

EXHIBIT 26 2012 Net Income by Practice Category (Full-time Only)

VALUE BY PERCENTILE


Solo, office outside home 215 $97,247 $45,000 $80,000 $120,000 $255,000Solo, home office 42 72,587 30,000 50,000 88,000 180,000Solo with 1+ associate 48 159,521 99,500 150,000 200,000 325,000Space sharer 18 185,333 48,000 85,000 200,000 1,250,000Partner in firm with 2-7 partners 219 204,063 90,000 128,000 212,000 600,000Partner in firm with 8+ partners 128 257,829 150,000 200,500 316,401 520,000Of Counsel 21 125,333 70,000 110,000 160,000 215,000Contact attorney / Consultant 5 89,800 53,000 60,000 86,000 200,000Associate with sole practitioner 25 66,110 50,000 60,000 85,000 100,000Associate in firm with 2-7 partners 69 84,041 55,000 65,000 100,000 145,000Associate in firm with 8+ partners 46 94,163 75,000 97,500 112,000 130,000 Total 846 $152,306 $65,000 $105,000 $180,000 $400,000





EXHIBIT 27 2012 Net Income of Government Lawyers and House Counsel by Practice Category (Full-time Only)

VALUE BY PERCENTILE

25th 75th 95th Government Lawyers N Mean Percentile Median Percentile Percentile

Judge / Magistrate (full-time) 59 $89,313 $70,000 $82,000 $120,000 $123,000City government 25 76,480 58,000 75,000 93,000 110,000County government 82 67,979 50,000 61,500 75,000 115,000State government / Leg. attorney 5 74,200 48,000 50,000 104,000 121,000State government / Other 48 99,399 68,500 86,500 91,000 160,000Law clerk 18 61,336 52,000 59,458 69,000 100,000Legal services agency 11 70,591 56,000 61,500 95,000 109,000Federal government 8 120,500 93,500 121,500 144,500 160,000 Total 264 $81,354 $58,958 $73,000 $93,000 $125,000

House Counsel

CLO or General Counsel (GC) 28 $197,674 $120,000 $158,500 $235,000 $500,000Senior Counsel 22 169,000 125,000 150,000 200,000 316,000Assistant GC 16 144,188 100,000 121,000 158,500 350,000Counsel 34 92,741 75,000 90,000 115,000 140,000 Total 105 $150,296 $94,000 $123,600 $175,000 $325,000

Exhibits 28 and 29 reveal income clustering among all practice categories. Not surprisingly, there is a large spread of income within most categories, reflecting different forms and styles of practice. Exhibit 29 covers government lawyers and house counsel.

EXHIBIT 28 Percent Distribution of 2012 Private Practice Attorney Net Income by Income Group and Practice Class

COLUMN PERCENTS

Partner in Partner in Associate in Associate in Solo, Office Solo, Solo with Firm with Firm with Firm with Firm with All Private

2012 Income Group Outside Home Home Office 1+ Assoc. 2-7 Partners 8+ Partners 2-7 Partners 8+ Partners Practitioners

<$30K 16.7% 48.1% — — — — — 11.2%$30-45.9K 11.2% 12.0% — — — 10.7% — 6.3%$46-55.9K 8.8% 9.3% — 6.4% — 14.7% — 7.4%$56-65.9K 10.0% — — 4.3% — 25.3% 13.5% 8.2%$66-75.9K 6.4% 5.6% — 3.0% — 12.0% 11.5% 5.5%$76-85.9K 6.8% — — 5.1% — — — 4.5%$86-95.9K 4.4% — — 7.7% — — 11.5% 4.9%$96-115.9K 9.2% — 12.2% 12.8% 6.9% 10.7% 26.9% 10.7%$116-135.9K 8.4% 5.6% — 11.1% 8.4% 8.0% 21.2% 9.0%$136-175.9K 8.0% — 18.4% 13.6% 13.0% — — 9.0%$176-249.9K 5.6% — 30.6% 13.6% 25.2% — — 10.8%$250-479K 4.0% — 12.2% 11.9% 31.3% — — 9.2%$480K+ — — — 7.2% 8.4% — — 3.1%Count 251 108 49 235 131 75 52 998

All Private Practitioners 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%





EXHIBIT 29 Percent Distribution of 2012 Government Lawyer and House Counsel by Net Income by Income Group and Practice Class

Judge/Magistrate All Gov. 2012 Income Group (full-time) City Gov. County Gov. State Gov. Law Clerk Attorneys

<$30K — — — — — 2.1%$30-45.9K — — 11.8% — — 6.7%$46-55.9K — — 18.8% 13.2% 21.1% 12.0%$56-65.9K 14.1% — 30.6% 9.4% 36.8% 19.4%$66-75.9K 25.0% 27.6% 10.6% 11.3% — 15.8%$76-85.9K 10.9% — 8.2% 13.2% — 9.5%$86-95.9K 7.8% 17.2% — 30.2% — 11.3%$96-115.9K 10.9% 13.8% 7.1% 15.1% — 11.6%$116-135.9K 25.0% — — — — 8.5%$136-175.9K 0.0% — — — — 1.4%$250-479K 0.0% — — — — 1.4%$480K+ 0.0% — — — — 0.4%Count 64 29 85 53 19 284

All Government Lawyers 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

CLO or General Senior All House 2012 Income Group Counsel (GC) Counsel Counsel Counsel

$76-85.9K — — 17.6% 6.7%$86-95.9K — — 11.8% 8.6%$96-115.9K — — 20.6% 15.2%$116-135.9K 17.9% 22.7% 14.7% 18.1%$136-175.9K 21.4% — 8.8% 16.2%$176-249.9K 14.3% 27.3% — 10.5%$250-479K 17.9% — — 11.4%$480K+ — — — —Count 28 22 34 105

All House Counsel 100% 100% 100% 100%





Exhibit 30 displays median 2012 attorney net income for 10 practice categories by six “Years in Practice” categories. Exhibit 31 covers government lawyers and house counsel.

EXHIBIT 30 2012 Median Private Practitioner Median Net Income by Years in Practice and Practice Class

MEDIAN VALUES BY YEARS IN PRACTICE GROUP

Private Practitioners N 1 to 5 N 6 to 10 N 11 to 15

Solo, office outside home 22 $40,000 16 $45,000 16 $79,000Solo, home office 19 $15,750 — — 8 $58,500Solo with 1+ associate — — — — 4 $117,500Space sharer 4 $47,500 4 $59,000 — —Partner in firm with 2-7 partners 7 $46,500 14 $97,500 22 $162,500Partner in firm with 8+ partners — — 6 $109,300 18 $165,000Of Counsel — — — — 4 $102,500Associate with sole practitioner 11 $46,000 5 $100,000 — —Associate in firm with 2-7 partners 34 $58,600 16 $72,000 7 $120,000Associate in firm with 8+ partners 27 $88,000 15 $101,000 5 $123,000 Totals 131 $55,000 84 $80,000 89 $115,000

Private Practitioners N 16 to 25 N 26 to 35 N 36+

Solo, office outside home 58 $85,000 70 $90,000 67 $69,000Solo, home office 23 $46,000 27 $30,000 28 $43,000Solo with 1+ associate 5 $99,000 23 $160,000 14 $187,500Space sharer 4 $125,000 7 $84,000 4 $255,000Partner in firm with 2-7 partners 48 $125,000 82 $150,000 61 $120,000Partner in firm with 8+ partners 31 $225,000 40 $212,500 36 $240,000Of Counsel — — 5 $160,000 16 $95,000Associate with sole practitioner 4 $92,000 — — — —Associate in firm with 2-7 partners 7 $100,000 8 $92,500 — —Associate in firm with 8+ partners 4 $109,000 — — — — Totals 190 $110,000 268 $120,000 233 $110,000





EXHIBIT 31 2012 Median Government Lawyer and House Counsel Median Net Income by Years in Practice and Practice Class


Government Lawyers N 1 to 5 N 6 to 10 N 11 to 15

Judge / Magistrate (full-time) — — 4 $56,000 5 $70,000City government 5 $45,000 — — — —County government 12 $44,000 10 $47,000 18 $58,500State government / Other 6 $50,500 6 $90,000 7 $73,000Law clerk 4 $57,458 8 $55,320 — — Totals 31 $50,000 38 $60,000 39 $63,000

Government Lawyers N 16 to 25 N 26 to 35 N 36+

Judge / Magistrate (full-time) 12 $73,500 26 $96,250 17 $98,000City government 8 $74,000 5 $105,000 6 $96,000County government 21 $62,400 15 $86,000 9 $84,000State government / AG office 13 $90,000 18 $88,000 — —Law clerk — — 4 $76,500 — — Totals 63 $73,000 75 $90,000 38 $92,000


House Counsel N 1 to 5 N 6 to 10 N 11 to 15

CLO or General Counsel (GC) — — — — — —Senior Counsel — — — — 5 $150,000Assistant GC — — 5 $110,000 — —Counsel 7 $55,000 7 $94,000 4 $125,000 Total 10 $64,000 17 $109,000 16 $137,500

House Counsel N 16 to 25 N 26 to 35 N 36+

CLO or General Counsel (GC) 6 $163,938 9 $175,000 5 $200,000Senior Counsel 7 $188,000 5 $132,000 — —Assistant GC 4 $142,000 — — — —Counsel 9 $105,000 5 $82,000 — — Total 27 $120,000 23 $132,000 11 $150,000





Income by Field of LawAttorneys were asked to select from a list of various fields of law those that provided their highest sources of income defined here as primary field of law. Exhibit 32 distributes 2012 net incomes of all private practice respondents by their reported primary source of income. Exhibit 33 considers full-time private practitioners only. Exhibit 34 also includes practice emphases for government lawyers and house counsel.

EXHIBIT 32 2012 Net Income by Primary Field of Law, Private Practitioners

VALUE BY PERCENTILE

25th 75th 95th Primary Field of Law N Mean Percentile Median Percentile Percentile

Administrative Law 11 $137,273 $30,000 $110,000 $254,000 $375,000Appellate Law 4 158,500 68,000 132,500 249,000 323,000Bankruptcy, Debtor 21 105,857 46,000 98,000 120,000 255,000Bankruptcy, Creditor 8 160,688 119,750 140,000 170,000 366,000Civil Rights 10 195,900 100,000 150,000 200,000 500,000Collections 23 128,712 44,000 72,000 115,000 300,000Consumer Law 8 422,750 60,000 199,500 863,500 1,100,000Corporate/Business Law 66 151,048 63,500 117,500 200,000 425,000Criminal (Public Defendant) 21 40,564 22,673 35,000 60,000 80,000Criminal (Private Defendant) 34 100,368 25,000 75,000 125,000 350,000Criminal (Prosecution) 4 40,625 19,250 38,500 62,000 82,000Domestic Relations / Family Law 98 99,626 45,760 65,000 120,000 250,000Education Law 8 195,375 130,000 212,500 249,000 300,000Elder Law / Public Benefits / ERISA 22 93,635 45,000 96,500 150,000 180,000Environmental Law / Nat Resources Law 10 187,780 101,000 153,000 265,000 400,000General Practice 32 84,125 48,500 65,000 111,000 200,000Health & Hospital Law 6 217,167 125,000 172,500 240,000 500,000Immigration Law 3 59,667 34,000 45,000 100,000 100,000Insurance Law 32 124,287 65,000 98,000 175,000 250,000Intellectual Property law 9 186,667 76,000 90,000 245,000 620,000Labor Law (Management) 6 235,667 139,000 170,000 300,000 500,000Labor Law (Labor) 8 102,875 57,500 74,000 165,000 180,000Landlord/Tenant Law 7 33,763 4,200 30,000 60,000 75,000Employment Law (Management) 21 141,595 63,000 112,000 200,000 320,000Employment Law (Labor) 22 115,470 60,000 96,000 130,000 220,000Medical Malpractice 15 196,167 100,000 124,000 255,000 500,000Municipal / Public Entity Law 15 96,767 65,000 100,000 110,000 200,000Product Liability 10 169,500 86,000 130,000 230,000 400,000Personal Injury (Defendant) 20 149,677 97,000 139,000 195,000 286,522Personal Injury (Plaintiff) 52 238,498 60,000 117,500 200,000 1,500,000Professional Liability 4 107,250 34,500 72,500 180,000 265,000Real Property Law 63 135,940 65,000 100,000 175,000 370,000Social Security 8 85,625 35,000 85,000 127,500 170,000Taxation 18 161,722 60,000 123,000 250,000 400,000Trial Practice, not PI (General Civil) 44 204,917 77,500 157,000 232,500 500,000Trial Practice, not PI (Commercial) 38 219,411 100,000 157,500 270,000 520,000Estate Planning / Wealth Management 43 103,953 36,000 72,000 150,000 300,000Probate, Descendant's Estates 114 98,451 48,000 86,000 125,000 205,000Workers' Comp (Plaintiff) 15 105,667 65,000 120,000 150,000 212,000Workers' Comp (Defense) 14 182,571 100,000 200,000 250,000 350,000 All Private Practitioners 969 $137,744 $55,000 $100,000 $165,000 $375,000





EXHIBIT 33 2012 Net Income by Field of Law, Full-time Private Practitioners

VALUE BY PERCENTILE


Administrative Law 7 $195,571 $110,000 $180,000 $265,000 $375,000Appellate Law 4 158,500 68,000 132,500 249,000 323,000Bankruptcy, Debtor 19 103,053 45,000 98,000 120,000 300,000Bankruptcy, Creditor 8 160,688 119,750 140,000 170,000 366,000Civil Rights 8 204,875 95,000 150,000 310,000 500,000Collections 20 142,380 54,500 81,500 145,000 650,000Consumer Law 7 478,000 70,000 234,000 917,000 1,100,000Corporate/Business Law 55 171,025 80,000 124,000 225,000 470,000Criminal (Public Defendant) 18 44,733 23,000 38,750 75,000 80,000Criminal (Private Defendant) 25 118,860 50,000 85,000 185,000 350,000Domestic Relations / Family Law 81 106,120 46,000 65,000 120,000 250,000Education Law 7 211,857 140,000 225,000 258,000 300,000Elder Law / Public Benefits / ERISA 19 93,156 45,000 85,000 150,000 200,000Environmental Law / Natural Resources Law 10 187,780 101,000 153,000 265,000 400,000General Practice 24 87,250 48,500 66,000 111,000 200,000Health & Hospital Law 6 217,167 125,000 172,500 240,000 500,000Insurance Law 31 126,844 65,000 101,000 185,000 250,000Intellectual Property Law 9 186,667 76,000 90,000 245,000 620,000Labor Law (Management) 6 235,667 139,000 170,000 300,000 500,000Labor Law (Labor) 7 91,857 55,000 63,000 150,000 180,000Employment Law (Management) 16 171,281 89,000 131,250 230,000 430,000Employment Law (Labor) 22 115,470 60,000 96,000 130,000 220,000Medical Malpractice 13 215,385 101,000 124,000 255,000 500,000Municipal/Public Entity Law 15 96,767 65,000 100,000 110,000 200,000Product Liability 10 169,500 86,000 130,000 230,000 400,000Personal Injury (Defendant) 15 157,703 99,000 145,000 210,000 273,044Personal Injury (Plaintiff) 46 262,851 70,654 150,000 200,000 1,500,000Professional Liability 2 180,000 95,000 180,000 265,000 265,000Real Property Law 59 142,597 70,000 100,000 180,000 390,000Social Security 7 89,286 20,000 110,000 135,000 170,000Taxation 16 172,250 74,250 135,000 255,000 400,000Trial Practice, not PI (General Civil) 37 218,686 75,000 175,000 240,000 900,000Trial Practice, not PI (Commercial) 33 232,776 100,000 164,000 270,000 520,000Estate Planning / Wealth Management 30 130,733 60,000 120,000 170,000 300,000Probate, Descendant's Estates 93 111,182 65,000 100,000 130,000 225,000Workers' Comp (Plaintiff) 14 108,286 65,000 120,000 150,000 212,000Workers' Comp (Defense) 13 190,615 125,000 200,000 250,000 350,000 All Full-time Private Practitioners 821 $151,090 $65,000 $105,000 $180,000 $400,000





EXHIBIT 34 2012 Net Income by Primary Field of Law, Government Lawyers and House Counsel by Field of Law and Practice Emphases

VALUE BY PERCENTILE


Administrative Law 16 $76,750 $65,750 $83,500 $89,500 $100,000Appellate Law 14 60,250 50,000 61,500 70,000 85,000Civil Rights 4 74,500 56,000 76,000 93,000 96,000Criminal (Public Defendant) 10 54,600 37,000 56,000 72,000 85,000Criminal (Prosecution) 28 59,946 48,500 60,000 72,500 93,000Domestic Relations / Family Law 60 69,248 60,000 65,800 75,000 108,000Education Law 7 83,857 52,000 103,000 107,000 113,000Environmental Law / Natural Resources Law 7 78,000 48,000 82,000 90,000 133,000General Practice 20 99,732 58,820 82,500 106,000 267,500Labor Law (Management) 6 175,333 50,000 68,000 95,000 740,000Municipal/Public Entity Law 20 89,550 74,000 90,000 105,000 127,500Trial Practice, not PI (General Civil) 5 87,670 77,350 80,000 98,000 121,000Probate, Descendant's Estates 5 66,200 42,000 74,000 77,000 96,000Workers' Comp (Defense) 7 81,714 68,000 83,000 92,000 100,000 All Government Lawyers 232 $77,973 $58,000 $70,000 $90,000 $121,000

Practice Emphasis

Criminal Prosecution 33 $60,773 $50,000 $60,000 $75,000 $105,000Criminal Defense 10 57,900 43,000 57,500 72,000 85,000Litigation 57 74,916 57,000 68,000 80,000 125,000Personnel 7 80,714 50,000 85,000 105,000 114,000Labor Relations 6 199,333 86,000 97,500 113,000 740,000Governmental Affairs / External Relations 42 77,732 57,000 82,500 92,000 121,000Preside Over Hearings/Cases 76 81,755 65,000 76,500 97,000 121,000Information Technology & Management 6 76,500 53,000 82,500 90,000 109,000Education / Training 4 61,500 52,000 60,500 71,000 73,000Child Support / Family Law 12 63,317 54,000 61,500 74,000 82,000 All Government Lawyers 253 $77,307 $58,000 $72,000 $90,000 $121,000

Practice Emphasis

Generalist 28 $149,768 $89,000 $122,500 $200,000 $300,000Intellectual Property 7 137,800 75,000 123,600 216,000 250,000Employment / HR 11 129,545 85,000 115,000 150,000 325,000Regulatory, Compliance, Governance 32 174,030 110,000 147,500 175,438 500,000Real Estate 10 123,200 73,000 122,500 140,000 230,000Litigation 32 121,703 90,000 100,000 127,500 316,000 All House Counsel 122 $144,415 $90,000 $120,000 $175,000 $325,000





Income by Years in PracticeAttorney income increases with tenure as displayed in Exhibit 35.

EXHIBIT 35 2012 Net Income by Years of Practice, All Attorney Classes

VALUE BY PERCENTILE

YEARS IN PRACTICE 25th 75th 95th All Private Practitioners N Mean Percentile Median Percentile Percentile

1 to 2 54 $50,487 $25,000 $47,250 $65,000 $105,0003 to 5 78 66,094 38,500 59,500 85,000 125,0006 to 10 84 93,169 60,000 80,000 105,000 150,00011 to 15 89 173,692 75,000 115,000 165,000 470,00016 to 25 191 155,906 65,000 110,000 192,000 425,00026 to 35 273 154,075 75,000 120,000 200,000 375,00036+ 234 152,479 60,000 109,500 200,000 450,000 All Attorneys 1,003 $138,272 $55,600 $100,000 $165,000 $375,000

Full-time Private Practitioners

1 to 2 46 $56,668 $45,000 $52,000 $65,000 $105,0003 to 5 64 73,213 50,000 61,500 88,250 125,0006 to 10 73 98,116 63,000 85,000 105,000 155,00011 to 15 80 184,460 83,000 121,500 175,000 495,00016 to 25 165 169,694 75,000 112,500 200,000 500,00026 to 35 237 166,871 85,000 130,000 200,000 400,00036+ 184 174,461 70,000 120,000 200,000 500,000 All Full-time Private Practitioners 849 $151,779 $65,000 $105,000 $180,000 $400,000

Government Lawyers

1 to 2 23 $50,975 $46,000 $50,000 $53,000 $93,0003 to 5 12 52,250 44,500 50,000 57,000 85,0006 to 10 42 81,471 49,500 60,500 82,000 105,00011 to 15 41 66,342 56,000 62,000 74,256 95,00016 to 25 64 75,689 60,000 74,000 89,000 114,50026 to 35 83 94,435 72,000 87,000 114,000 132,00036+ 40 101,450 74,000 93,500 117,500 209,500 All Government Lawyers 305 $80,923 $58,640 $73,000 $93,000 $125,000

House Counsel

1 to 2 4 $37,500 $25,000 $37,500 $50,000 $55,0003 to 5 12 80,133 56,500 75,000 97,500 149,0006 to 10 20 103,455 81,250 109,500 124,300 150,00011 to 15 19 160,842 100,000 140,000 195,000 500,00016 to 25 30 158,696 105,000 122,500 190,000 325,00026 to 35 28 172,571 103,000 141,000 203,000 350,00036+ 14 192,714 135,000 162,500 250,000 370,000 All House Counsel 127 $145,886 $90,000 $122,000 $175,000 $325,000





Attorney Income by Firm Size Exhibit 36 displays 2012 attorney net income by firm size. Within larger firms, lower percentile values generally represent associates, while higher percentile values, partners. Median levels, in this exhibit, represent a “mix” of both categories. Full-time attorneys are included.

EXHIBIT 36 2012 Net Income by Firm Size, All Classes of Attorneys

VALUE BY PERCENTILE

SIZE OF FIRM (NUMBER OF ATTORNEYS) 25th 75th 95th All Private Practitioners N Mean Percentile Median Percentile Percentile

1 397 $87,166 $35,000 $65,000 $110,000 $240,0002 91 127,908 60,000 100,000 160,000 300,0003 to 6 199 140,816 65,000 100,000 155,000 350,0007 to 10 61 200,213 90,000 133,000 200,000 500,00011 to 20 64 238,736 90,750 152,500 240,000 600,00021 to 50 75 182,814 87,500 120,000 200,000 500,000>50 103 210,816 110,000 165,000 300,000 475,000 All Private Practitioners 990 $138,570 $55,600 $100,000 $165,000 $375,000

Full-time Private Practitioners 1 291 $102,148 $45,000 $80,000 $125,000 $265,0002 82 130,605 60,000 99,500 150,000 300,0003 to 6 186 144,093 65,000 100,000 165,000 350,0007 to 10 54 208,481 90,000 131,500 200,000 900,00011 to 20 63 240,700 85,000 155,000 240,000 600,00021 to 50 72 185,807 87,750 122,000 200,000 500,000>50 92 222,788 117,500 180,000 300,000 500,000 All Full-time Private Practitioners 840 $151,825 $65,000 $105,000 $180,000 $400,000

Government Lawyers 1 28 $94,886 $67,500 $89,000 $113,500 $135,0002 45 85,219 60,000 80,000 105,000 123,0003 to 6 62 73,324 56,000 71,000 95,000 121,0007 to 10 42 90,645 60,000 72,000 88,000 130,00011 to 20 48 69,323 53,000 69,500 77,500 110,00021 to 50 47 80,278 58,000 70,000 92,000 140,000>50 16 76,375 59,000 73,500 86,000 160,000 All Government Lawyers 288 $80,442 $58,778 $73,000 $92,500 $123,000

House Counsel 1 29 $134,616 $92,000 $125,000 $175,875 $250,0002 13 108,615 65,000 100,000 152,000 220,0003 to 6 43 144,084 90,000 118,000 155,000 325,0007 to 10 9 169,344 82,500 123,600 150,000 600,00011 to 20 12 126,083 90,000 110,000 150,000 250,00021 to 50 16 218,375 135,000 188,500 295,500 500,000>50 4 103,750 70,000 122,500 137,500 150,000 All House Counsel 126 $146,489 $90,000 $122,800 $175,000 $325,000





Attorney Income by Office LocationExhibit 37 displays 2012 annual net income of Ohio attorneys within major metropolitan areas and regions, along with all major jurisdictions. Exhibits 38-40 include only includes full-time private practitioners, and house counsel.

EXHIBIT 37 2012 Net Income, All Private Practitioners by Office Location

VALUE BY PERCENTILE

25th 75th 95th Office Location N Mean Percentile Median Percentile Percentile

Greater Cleveland 206 $154,755 $57,000 $101,000 $185,000 $500,000Greater Cincinnati 118 140,278 59,000 102,500 200,000 350,000Greater Columbus 195 152,369 60,000 105,000 180,000 470,000Greater Dayton 54 145,902 60,000 110,000 155,000 500,000Northeast Region 163 111,403 50,000 83,000 150,000 320,000Northwest Region 129 116,593 52,000 85,000 140,000 325,000Southern Region 124 143,516 50,000 93,500 145,000 350,000Downtown Cleveland 110 174,015 85,000 124,750 200,000 500,000Suburban Cleveland 96 132,687 36,500 68,500 155,000 500,000Downtown Cincinnati 71 161,326 70,000 120,000 200,000 400,000Suburban Cincinnati 47 108,480 46,500 87,000 165,000 275,000Downtown Columbus 102 197,795 71,000 136,750 210,000 500,000Suburban Columbus 93 102,547 50,000 75,000 120,000 300,000Akron 50 113,994 45,000 84,000 165,000 320,000Canton 20 166,800 65,000 135,000 255,000 485,000Dayton 54 145,902 60,000 110,000 155,000 500,000Toledo 74 137,420 60,000 97,500 185,000 400,000Youngstown 17 106,969 72,000 82,000 180,000 200,000Northeast Ohio 76 96,111 49,000 81,000 120,000 273,044Northwest Ohio 55 88,572 50,000 80,000 120,000 200,000Southeast Ohio 45 222,578 75,000 99,000 195,000 1,150,000Southwest Ohio 34 93,021 50,000 87,500 142,000 200,000Central Ohio 45 102,605 50,000 80,000 125,000 255,000 All Private Practitioners 989 $138,542 $55,000 $100,000 $165,000 $375,000





EXHIBIT 38 2012 Net Income, All Full-time Private Practitioners by Office Location

VALUE BY PERCENTILE


Greater Cleveland 173 $172,892 $70,000 $112,900 $200,000 $500,000Greater Cincinnati 100 152,361 63,000 115,000 200,000 350,000Greater Columbus 168 164,980 65,000 115,000 182,500 500,000Greater Dayton 44 161,993 92,000 117,500 165,250 500,000Northeast Region 132 127,353 65,000 95,700 165,000 330,000Northwest Region 117 121,316 52,500 90,000 150,000 366,000Southern Region 106 159,313 60,000 99,500 150,000 360,000Downtown Cleveland 99 180,853 86,000 125,000 200,000 500,000Suburban Cleveland 74 162,242 54,000 97,000 200,000 500,000Downtown Cincinnati 66 164,154 82,000 120,000 200,000 400,000Suburban Cincinnati 34 129,469 55,600 100,000 200,000 300,000Downtown Columbus 90 212,316 97,000 150,000 227,000 520,000Suburban Columbus 78 110,361 50,000 82,500 130,000 320,000Akron 38 134,294 60,000 95,000 200,000 350,000Canton 16 200,625 100,000 175,000 265,000 520,000Dayton 44 161,993 92,000 117,500 165,250 500,000Toledo 70 140,261 59,000 97,500 190,000 400,000Youngstown 16 111,404 73,500 84,000 180,000 200,000Northeast Ohio 62 108,306 60,000 87,500 125,000 273,044Northwest Ohio 47 93,100 50,000 85,000 120,000 200,000Southeast Ohio 42 232,167 78,000 99,500 195,000 1,150,000Southwest Ohio 27 107,297 60,000 110,000 150,000 200,000Central Ohio 37 114,573 60,000 90,000 140,000 300,000 All Full-time Private Practitioners 840 $152,241 $64,000 $105,000 $180,000 $400,000

EXHIBIT 39 2012 Net Income, All House Counsel by Office Location

VALUE BY PERCENTILE


Greater Cleveland 26 $156,115 $90,000 $127,500 $180,000 $370,000Greater Cincinnati 18 122,222 94,000 117,500 150,000 325,000Greater Columbus 31 146,193 90,000 135,000 200,000 316,000Greater Dayton 8 225,438 113,000 135,000 312,500 600,000Northeast Region 19 100,447 80,000 95,000 120,000 152,000Northwest Region 9 171,111 109,000 122,000 149,000 500,000Southern Region 10 126,300 83,000 117,500 150,000 250,000Downtown Cleveland 9 174,667 100,000 130,000 165,000 400,000Suburban Cleveland 17 146,294 80,000 125,000 180,000 370,000Downtown Cincinnati 8 128,000 117,500 125,000 145,000 155,000Suburban Cincinnati 10 117,600 55,000 103,000 150,000 325,000Downtown Columbus 11 98,191 49,100 80,000 167,000 190,000Suburban Columbus 20 172,594 100,000 162,938 225,000 320,500Akron 4 88,625 68,750 83,500 108,500 125,000Dayton 8 225,438 113,000 135,000 312,500 600,000Toledo 8 130,000 99,500 116,000 144,500 250,000Northeast Ohio 9 104,111 90,000 105,000 118,000 130,000Southwest Ohio 5 118,600 80,000 83,000 150,000 250,000 All House Counsel 121 $143,025 $90,000 $120,000 $165,000 $325,000





EXHIBIT 40 2012 Net Income, All Government Lawyers by Office Location

VALUE BY PERCENTILE


Greater Cleveland 30 $107,517 $60,000 $86,000 $114,500 $154,000Greater Cincinnati 19 81,979 63,000 76,000 89,000 140,000Greater Columbus 70 88,567 61,500 83,000 100,000 160,000Greater Dayton 21 68,762 61,000 65,000 75,000 114,000Northeast Region 60 71,112 59,500 71,000 79,500 117,000Northwest Region 43 73,158 52,000 68,000 96,000 120,000Southern Region 53 70,964 56,000 65,000 88,000 120,000Downtown Cleveland 21 108,286 58,000 74,000 96,000 154,000Suburban Cleveland 9 105,722 92,000 114,500 125,000 140,000Downtown Cincinnati 14 86,400 64,000 78,000 120,000 140,000Suburban Cincinnati 5 69,600 63,000 68,000 85,000 87,000Downtown Columbus 63 86,384 60,000 80,000 98,000 121,000Suburban Columbus 7 108,214 90,000 101,000 120,000 160,000Akron 16 73,438 59,500 69,500 86,500 121,000Canton 9 66,711 44,000 69,000 81,000 113,000Dayton 21 68,762 61,000 65,000 75,000 114,000Toledo 16 71,625 54,500 69,000 90,500 109,000Youngstown 6 62,917 50,000 64,000 75,000 75,000Northeast Ohio 29 72,890 65,000 73,000 79,000 120,000Northwest Ohio 27 74,067 48,800 65,000 103,000 120,000Southeast Ohio 15 63,000 46,000 60,000 78,000 121,000Southwest Ohio 18 74,533 59,000 65,300 90,000 120,000Central Ohio 20 73,725 58,000 72,750 88,000 118,500 All Government Lawyers 296 $79,731 $58,320 $72,000 $92,000 $121,000





Gender Variations in Attorney IncomeThe 2012 median net income for female attorneys ($70,000) is 64 percent of the 2012 median net income for male attorneys ($110,000). Overall, the “gap” for full-time attorneys remains at 67 percent ($120,000 for males versus $80,000 for females).

When considering the major practice classification groups of the survey respondents, median income for males exceeds attorney income of females for all groups. The gap is narrowest among attorneys working in the judiciary (Exhibit 41). The gender gap is smaller for house counsel and government lawyers than it is for private practitioners (Exhibit 42).

EXHIBIT 41 2012 Median Attorney Income by Practice Class and Gender

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

$140,000

$160,000

$180,000

General or Senior

Counsel

Solo/Space

Sharers

Legal Services

Law ClerkLocal Government

JudiciaryFederal Government

Firms State Government

Assistant, Deputy or

Division GC

¢ Female ¢ Male

EXHIBIT 42 2012 Median Attorney Income by Three Practice Groups and Gender

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

$140,000

All House Counsel All Private Practitioners All Government Lawyers

¢ Female ¢ Male





With respect to private practitioners, while male income exceeds female income in every years in practice category, the gender gap is smallest among younger cohorts of respondents (Exhibit 43). For house counsel, female incomes exceed male incomes in the 16-35 years in practice categories (Exhibit 44). Government lawyers express near parity in gender-associated income gaps (Exhibit 45).

EXHIBIT 43 2012 Median Attorney Income, Full-time Private Practitioners by Years in Practice and Gender

0

$60,000

$40,000

$20,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

$140,000

$160,000

1 to 2 26 to 35 All36+3 to 5 6 to 10 16 to 2511 to 15

¢ Female ¢ Male

EXHIBIT 44 2012 Median Attorney Income, Full-time House Counsel by Years in Practice and Gender

0

$60,000

$40,000

$20,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

$140,000

$180,000

$160,000


¢ Female ¢ Male





EXHIBIT 45 2012 Median Attorney Income, Full-time Government Lawyers by Years in Practice and Gender

0

$60,000

$40,000

$20,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000


¢ Female ¢ Male





A Profile of 2012 Attorney Hourly Billing Rates and Practices

2013 Attorney Hourly Billing RatesThe 2013 median hourly billing rate is $207. The average is $233. While many factors affect the setting of hourly billing rates, Exhibit 46 includes three: respondents’ firm size, years in practice and office location, while Exhibit 47 identifies primary field of law and practice category.

EXHIBIT 46 2012 Hourly Billing Rates by Firm Size, Years in Practice and Office Location

VALUE BY PERCENTILE

25th 75th 95th Size of Firm N Mean Percentile Median Percentile Percentile

1 393 $194 $150 $195 $225 $3002 89 224 165 200 275 3753 to 6 190 237 175 220 250 4007 to 10 60 240 180 210 263 46311 to 20 66 263 200 250 305 40021 to 50 79 254 200 250 300 415>50 110 336 245 325 400 625 Total 987 $233 $175 $207 $275 $410

Years in Practice

1 to 2 56 $153 $133 $150 $188 $2503 to 5 69 174 150 175 205 2556 to 10 86 207 175 200 245 32511 to 15 86 232 175 200 275 40016 to 25 189 233 175 200 275 42526 to 35 274 249 175 225 300 45036+ 239 261 200 250 325 450 Total 999 $233 $175 $210 $275 $415

Office Location

Downtown Cleveland 110 $306 $200 $275 $350 $625Suburban Cleveland 98 217 175 200 250 375Downtown Cincinnati 75 297 200 300 350 455Suburban Cincinnati 48 217 158 225 250 310Downtown Columbus 100 295 203 275 373 510Suburban Columbus 87 213 150 200 250 325Akron 49 220 155 200 250 390Canton 20 196 175 200 223 270Dayton 57 223 195 220 250 330Toledo 71 227 175 210 250 370Youngstown 17 163 150 175 200 250Northeast Ohio 77 195 150 180 225 300Northwest Ohio 54 170 138 175 195 275Southeast Ohio 44 203 150 190 250 350Southwest Ohio 29 196 150 200 250 300Central Ohio 47 187 160 200 220 250 Total 983 $233 $175 $210 $275 $415





EXHIBIT 47 2012 Hourly Billing Rates by Primary Field of Law and Practice Classification

VALUE BY PERCENTILE

25th 75th 95th Specialty N Mean Percentile Median Percentile Percentile

Administrative Law 11 $279 $200 $300 $350 $500Bankruptcy, Debtor 22 244 200 250 275 300Bankruptcy, Creditor 8 281 210 273 340 450Civil Rights 13 412 300 350 500 800Collections 19 200 165 195 210 375Consumer Law 7 341 225 300 425 675Corporate / Business Law 62 251 195 250 300 400Criminal (Public Defendant) 20 121 60 138 150 225Criminal (Private Defendant) 29 218 175 200 250 350Criminal (Prosecution) 5 170 150 175 175 200Domestic Relations / Family Law 106 198 150 200 225 300Education Law 7 255 225 240 300 310Elder Law / Public Benefits / ERISA 20 261 198 250 300 448Environmental Law/Natural Resources 10 317 225 338 380 430General Practice 33 201 150 175 225 400Health & Hospital Law 5 300 235 250 325 505Insurance Law 32 194 150 175 240 310Intellectual Property law 12 264 183 245 305 500Labor Law (Management) 6 289 200 255 350 490Labor Law (Labor) 7 231 150 240 275 395Landlord/Tenant Law 7 167 150 150 240 240Employment Law (Management) 22 249 200 250 300 310Employment Law (Labor) 24 313 225 288 375 525Medical Malpractice 14 221 180 200 225 400Municipal/Public Entity Law 14 199 150 195 250 285Product Liability 11 275 180 275 350 435Personal Injury (Defendant) 23 170 125 145 175 250Personal Injury (Plaintiff) 39 236 175 225 250 450Real Property Law 61 222 180 200 255 355Social Security 6 264 210 250 325 350Taxation 18 297 220 275 375 600Trial Practice, not PI (General Civil) 45 275 175 215 350 525Trial Practice, not PI (Commercial) 40 285 203 248 325 520Estate Planning / Wealth Management 47 220 175 200 250 350Probate, Descendant's Estates 116 209 175 200 250 300Workers' Comp (Plaintiff) 9 163 140 150 225 250Workers' Comp (Defense) 14 236 195 213 250 455 Total 956 $232 $175 $205 $275 $400

Practice Classification

Solo, Office Outside Home 250 $201 $160 $200 $225 $300Solo, Home Office 105 171 125 150 200 300Solo with 1+ Associate 48 269 200 250 313 425Space Sharer 25 198 150 200 250 300Partner in Firm with 2-7 Partners 231 246 185 225 280 400Partner in Firm with 8+ Partners 143 322 235 310 395 520Of Counsel 36 299 205 250 340 650Contact Attorney / Consultant 6 153 45 105 225 400Associate with Sole Practitioner 26 183 150 175 200 330Associate in Firm with 2-7 Partners 69 200 170 195 225 275Associate in Firm with 8+ Partners 50 215 165 210 250 330 Total 994 $233 $175 $205 $275 $410





Hourly Billing Rates for Associates and ParalegalsThe distribution of hourly billing rates for associates and paralegals are summarized by years of experience as Exhibit 48, by office location (Exhibits 49 and 50), and by firm size (Exhibits 51 and 52).

EXHIBIT 48 Distributions of 2013 Hourly Billing Rates for Associates and Paralegals by Years of Experience

COLUMN PERCENTS

None 3 Years Experience 5 Years Experience 10 Years Experience

Associate Billing Rate Category N % N % N % N %

<$116 41 15.2 8 2.9 4 1.4 6 2.2$116-125 38 14.1 23 8.4 11 4.0 — —$126-135 20 7.4 18 6.6 13 4.7 5 1.9$136-145 13 4.8 17 6.2 15 5.4 5 1.9$146-155 48 17.8 38 13.9 22 7.9 20 7.5$156-165 18 6.7 25 9.1 18 6.5 8 3.0$166-175 26 9.6 34 12.4 35 12.6 19 7.1$176-199 38 14.1 34 12.4 44 15.8 39 14.6$200-224 18 6.7 50 18.2 41 14.7 40 15.0$225-249 — — 15 5.5 43 15.5 33 12.4$250-274 6 2.2 9 3.3 15 5.4 42 15.7>$274 — — — — 17 6.1 47 17.6 All Associates 270 100% 274 100% 278 100% 267 100%

Paralegal Billing Rate Category

$40 or less 23 14.9 9 5.4 6 3.4 7 3.1$41-50 16 10.4 14 8.3 10 5.7 8 3.5$51-60 13 8.4 12 7.1 5 2.9 8 3.5$61-70 8 5.2 14 8.3 18 10.3 8 3.5$71-80 30 19.5 30 17.9 29 16.6 25 11.0$81-90 9 5.8 24 14.3 20 11.4 24 10.6$91-100 25 16.2 23 13.7 30 17.1 47 20.7$101-110 9 5.8 15 8.9 9 5.1 28 12.3$111-120 4 2.6 5 3.0 12 6.9 18 7.9$121-130 7 4.5 7 4.2 13 7.4 19 8.4$131-140 4 2.6 5 3.0 9 5.1 6 2.6>$140 6 3.9 10 6.0 14 8.0 29 12.8 All Paralegals 154 100% 168 100% 175 100% 227 100%





EXHIBIT 49 Distributions of 2013 Hourly Billing Rates for Associates by Office Location and Experience

COLUMN PERCENTS

ASSOCIATE BILLING RATE GROUP Greater Greater Greater Greater Northeast Northwest Southern No Experience Cleveland Cincinnati Columbus Dayton Region Region Region Ohio

<$116 9.3% 20.0% 3.5% 22.7% 12.9% 35.3% 21.4% 15.7%$116-125 11.1% 11.4% 17.5% 9.1% 19.4% 14.7% 17.9% 14.6%$126-135 9.3% 8.6% 7.0% 4.5% 6.5% 2.9% 7.1% 6.9%$136-145 5.6% 2.9% 1.8% 22.7% 3.2% 2.9% — 4.6%$146-155 18.5% 11.4% 14.0% 9.1% 19.4% 17.6% 32.1% 17.2%$156-165 1.9% 11.4% 10.5% 4.5% 12.9% 2.9% 3.6% 6.9%$166-175 14.8% 11.4% 8.8% 9.1% 9.7% 5.9% 3.6% 9.6%$176-199 18.5% 11.4% 21.1% 13.6% 9.7% 8.8% 7.1% 14.2%$200-224 5.6% 8.6% 12.3% 4.5% 3.2% 5.9% 3.6% 6.9%$225-249 — — 1.8% — 3.2% 2.9% — 1.1%$250-274 5.6% 2.9% 1.8% — — — — 1.9%>$274 — — — — — — 3.6% 0.4% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

3 Years Experience

<$116 1.7% — 1.7% 11.1% — 6.7% 7.1% 3.0%$116-125 5.2% 12.8% 5.2% 16.7% 5.7% 13.3% 10.7% 8.6%$126-135 3.4% 7.7% 8.6% — 11.4% 3.3% 10.7% 6.8%$136-145 8.6% 7.7% 3.4% — 5.7% 10.0% 7.1% 6.4%$146-155 13.8% 5.1% 6.9% 22.2% 14.3% 23.3% 17.9% 13.2%$156-165 8.6% 7.7% 6.9% 22.2% 17.1% 3.3% 7.1% 9.4%$166-175 12.1% 12.8% 10.3% 5.6% 8.6% 10.0% 21.4% 11.7%$176-199 12.1% 15.4% 17.2% — 17.1% 10.0% 3.6% 12.4%$200-224 17.2% 23.1% 24.1% 22.2% 17.1% 16.7% 7.1% 18.8%$225-249 8.6% 7.7% 8.6% — 2.9% — 3.6% 5.6%$250-274 5.2% — 6.9% — — 3.3% — 3.0%>$274 3.4% — — — — — 3.6% 1.1% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

5 Years Experience

<$116 1.9% — 3.2% 4.8% — — — 1.5%$116-125 1.9% 2.6% 3.2% 4.8% 2.8% 10.0% 3.6% 3.7%$126-135 3.8% 2.6% 1.6% 9.5% 5.6% 10.0% 3.6% 4.4%$136-145 — 12.8% 4.8% — 8.3% 6.7% 7.1% 5.6%$146-155 7.5% 5.1% 4.8% 9.5% 8.3% 6.7% 17.9% 7.8%$156-165 3.8% 5.1% 3.2% 14.3% 8.3% 6.7% 7.1% 5.9%$166-175 13.2% 5.1% 6.3% 14.3% 16.7% 16.7% 25.0% 12.6%$176-199 17.0% 12.8% 17.5% 9.5% 25.0% 16.7% 7.1% 15.9%$200-224 5.7% 25.6% 9.5% 14.3% 19.4% 16.7% 25.0% 15.2%$225-249 26.4% 15.4% 25.4% 19.0% 2.8% 6.7% — 15.9%$250-274 5.7% 10.3% 11.1% — 2.8% — — 5.6%>$274 13.2% 2.6% 9.5% — — 3.3% 3.6% 5.9% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

10 Years Experience

<$116 1.8% — 4.9% 5.9% — — 4.3% 2.3%$116-125 1.8% — 1.6% — 3.0% — — 1.2%$126-135 1.8% — 1.6% 11.8% 3.0% — — 1.9%$136-145 1.8% — — 5.9% — 6.1% 4.3% 1.9%$146-155 1.8% 8.3% 6.6% — 9.1% 15.2% 8.7% 6.9%$156-165 3.5% 5.6% — 5.9% 3.0% 3.0% 4.3% 3.1%$166-175 — — 3.3% 5.9% 21.2% 9.1% 21.7% 6.9%$176-199 21.1% 16.7% 13.1% — 15.2% 12.1% 8.7% 14.2%$200-224 12.3% 22.2% 8.2% 23.5% 15.2% 18.2% 17.4% 15.0%$225-249 10.5% 8.3% 13.1% 29.4% 15.2% 6.1% 17.4% 12.7%$250-274 15.8% 22.2% 18.0% 11.8% 6.1% 24.2% 8.7% 16.2%>$274 28.1% 16.7% 29.5% — 9.1% 6.1% 4.3% 17.7% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%





EXHIBIT 50 Distributions of 2013 Hourly Billing Rates for Paralegals by Office Location and Experience

COLUMN PERCENTS

PARALEGAL BILLING RATE GROUP Greater Greater Greater Greater Northeast Northwest Southern No Experience Cleveland Cincinnati Columbus Dayton Region Region Region Ohio

$40 or less 10.8% 16.7% 13.8% 20.0% 11.8% 40.0% 5.9% 15.5%$41-50 8.1% — 13.8% 13.3% 11.8% — 17.6% 9.5%$51-60 10.8% 5.6% 6.9% 13.3% 5.9% 13.3% 5.9% 8.8%$61-70 2.7% 5.6% 10.3% — — 6.7% 5.9% 4.7%$71-80 13.5% 50.0% 17.2% — 41.2% 13.3% 11.8% 20.3%$81-90 — — 10.3% 13.3% — — 11.8% 4.7%$91-100 21.6% 16.7% 3.4% 26.7% 17.6% — 29.4% 16.2%$101-110 10.8% — 6.9% — 5.9% — 11.8% 6.1%$111-120 2.7% — 3.4% — — 13.3% — 2.7%$121-130 10.8% — 3.4% 6.7% 5.9% — — 4.7%$131-140 — — 6.9% 6.7% — 6.7% — 2.7%>$140 8.1% 5.6% 3.4% — — 6.7% — 4.1% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

3 Years Experience

$40 or less 5.4% — 3.3% 11.8% 8.3% 12.5% — 5.6%$41-50 5.4% 8.7% — 5.9% 12.5% 18.8% 20.0% 8.6%$51-60 2.7% 4.3% 20.0% — — 6.2% 6.7% 6.2%$61-70 8.1% 4.3% 13.3% 11.8% 4.2% 12.5% — 8.0%$71-80 13.5% 39.1% 10.0% 5.9% 33.3% 18.8% 6.7% 18.5%$81-90 10.8% 8.7% 20.0% 17.6% 16.7% 12.5% 6.7% 13.6%$91-100 21.6% 13.0% 3.3% 23.5% 8.3% — 26.7% 13.6%$101-110 10.8% 8.7% 10.0% — 8.3% — 26.7% 9.3%$111-120 — — — 11.8% 4.2% 6.2% 6.7% 3.1%$121-130 5.4% 4.3% 3.3% 5.9% 4.2% 6.2% — 4.3%$131-140 8.1% — 3.3% 5.9% — — — 3.1%>$140 8.1% 8.7% 13.3% — — 6.2% — 6.2% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

5 Years Experience

$40 or less 2.6% — 3.0% 12.5% 5.0% 5.0% — 3.5%$41-50 7.9% 3.8% — 12.5% 5.0% 15.0% — 5.9%$51-60 5.3% 3.8% 3.0% — — 5.0% — 2.9%$61-70 2.6% 3.8% 18.2% — 5.0% 15.0% 17.6% 8.8%$71-80 10.5% 26.9% 15.2% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 11.8% 17.1%$81-90 7.9% 7.7% 9.1% 12.5% 15.0% 5.0% 23.5% 10.6%$91-100 15.8% 23.1% 9.1% 6.2% 35.0% 15.0% 23.5% 17.6%$101-110 7.9% 3.8% 9.1% 6.2% — — 5.9% 5.3%$111-120 10.5% 3.8% 6.1% — 5.0% 5.0% 17.6% 7.1%$121-130 10.5% 7.7% 6.1% 18.8% 5.0% 5.0% — 7.6%$131-140 5.3% — 9.1% 6.2% 5.0% 10.0% — 5.3%>$140 13.2% 15.4% 12.1% — — 5.0% — 8.2% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

10 Years Experience

$40 or less 4.2% — 2.5% 10.0% — 3.6% 4.3% 3.2%$41-50 2.1% 3.0% — — 6.7% 3.6% 13.0% 3.6%$51-60 8.3% 3.0% 2.5% — — 3.6% 4.3% 3.6%$61-70 2.1% 6.1% 5.0% 5.0% — 3.6% — 3.2%$71-80 8.3% 18.2% 15.0% — 10.0% 10.7% 8.7% 10.8%$81-90 8.3% 6.1% 10.0% 15.0% 10.0% 14.3% 8.7% 9.9%$91-100 14.6% 24.2% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 21.4% 34.8% 20.7%$101-110 16.7% 6.1% 15.0% 20.0% 6.7% 14.3% 8.7% 12.6%$111-120 8.3% 6.1% 5.0% 5.0% 16.7% 7.1% 8.7% 8.1%$121-130 10.4% 9.1% 5.0% 15.0% 10.0% 3.6% 8.7% 8.6%$131-140 4.2% 3.0% — 5.0% 6.7% — — 2.7%>$140 12.5% 15.2% 30.0% 5.0% 3.3% 14.3% — 13.1% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%





EXHIBIT 51 Distributions of 2013 Hourly Billing Rates for Associates by Firm Size and Years of Experience

FIRM SIZE (NUMBER OF ATTORNEYS)

ASSOCIATE BILLING RATE GROUP No Experience 1 2 3 to 6 7 to 10 11 to 20 21 to 50 >50 Ohio

<$116 42.3% 46.7% 15.9% 15.4% 5.4% 7.1% 4.0% 15.1%$116-125 19.2% 6.7% 18.8% 26.9% 13.5% 11.9% 4.0% 14.3%$126-135 3.8% 6.7% 4.3% 3.8% 16.2% 9.5% 6.0% 7.2%$136-145 — — 8.7% 3.8% — 11.9% — 4.5%$146-155 11.5% 13.3% 24.6% 23.1% 18.9% 23.8% 4.0% 17.7%$156-165 7.7% 6.7% 5.8% 3.8% 8.1% 7.1% 8.0% 6.8%$166-175 11.5% — 11.6% 3.8% 13.5% 9.5% 8.0% 9.4%$176-199 — 13.3% 2.9% 11.5% 8.1% 16.7% 42.0% 14.3%$200-224 3.8% — 2.9% 7.7% 8.1% 2.4% 18.0% 6.8%$225-249 — — — — 5.4% — 2.0% 1.1%$250-274 — 6.7% 4.3% — — — 4.0% 2.3%>$274 — — — — 2.7% — — 0.4% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

3 Years Experience

<$116 10.0% 12.5% 2.9% 3.6% 2.3% — — 3.0%$116-125 20.0% 18.8% 8.6% 7.1% 9.3% 4.5% 4.1% 8.5%$126-135 10.0% 6.2% 7.1% 7.1% — 11.4% 4.1% 6.3%$136-145 5.0% — 5.7% 7.1% 9.3% 9.1% 4.1% 6.3%$146-155 15.0% 12.5% 18.6% 25.0% 9.3% 15.9% — 13.3%$156-165 5.0% 6.2% 11.4% 17.9% 9.3% 11.4% 2.0% 9.3%$166-175 10.0% 12.5% 10.0% 7.1% 20.9% 15.9% 10.2% 12.6%$176-199 25.0% 12.5% 12.9% 7.1% 16.3% 9.1% 8.2% 12.2%$200-224 — 12.5% 11.4% 10.7% 11.6% 20.5% 46.9% 18.5%$225-249 — — 7.1% 3.6% 7.0% 2.3% 10.2% 5.6%$250-274 — 6.2% 2.9% 3.6% 2.3% — 8.2% 3.3%>$274 — — 1.4% — 2.3% — 2.0% 1.1% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

5 Years Experience

<$116 9.1% 5.0% — — 2.3% — — 1.5%$116-125 — 5.0% 7.1% 10.3% 4.7% — — 4.0%$126-135 — 15.0% 4.3% 3.4% 4.7% 2.3% 6.4% 4.7%$136-145 13.6% — 4.3% 10.3% — 9.3% 2.1% 5.1%$146-155 4.5% 15.0% 10.0% 3.4% 7.0% 9.3% 4.3% 7.7%$156-165 4.5% 5.0% 4.3% 10.3% 2.3% 16.3% 2.1% 6.2%$166-175 18.2% 5.0% 15.7% 27.6% 11.6% 11.6% 2.1% 12.8%$176-199 22.7% 20.0% 17.1% 6.9% 25.6% 16.3% 4.3% 15.7%$200-224 13.6% 5.0% 17.1% 6.9% 20.9% 14.0% 17.0% 15.0%$225-249 13.6% 10.0% 8.6% 6.9% 7.0% 20.9% 38.3% 15.7%$250-274 — 5.0% 2.9% 10.3% 7.0% — 12.8% 5.5%>$274 — 10.0% 8.6% 3.4% 7.0% — 10.6% 6.2% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

10 Years Experience

<$116 10.3% — 3.2% — 2.4% — — 2.3%$116-125 — 5.3% — 4.2% 2.4% — — 1.1%$126-135 — — — 8.3% 2.4% — 4.3% 1.9%$136-145 — 10.5% 4.8% — — — — 1.9%$146-155 6.9% 10.5% 7.9% 8.3% 2.4% 15.0% — 6.8%$156-165 6.9% — 3.2% — 2.4% 2.5% 4.3% 3.0%$166-175 3.4% — 12.7% 8.3% 2.4% 10.0% 4.3% 6.8%$176-199 17.2% 5.3% 20.6% 12.5% 22.0% 15.0% 4.3% 14.8%$200-224 17.2% 15.8% 9.5% 16.7% 26.8% 12.5% 10.6% 14.8%$225-249 13.8% 15.8% 9.5% 8.3% 9.8% 17.5% 14.9% 12.5%$250-274 10.3% 5.3% 12.7% 12.5% 14.6% 25.0% 23.4% 16.0%>$274 13.8% 31.6% 15.9% 20.8% 12.2% 2.5% 34.0% 17.9% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%





EXHIBIT 52 Distributions of 2013 Hourly Billing Rates for Paralegals by Firm Size and Experience


PARALEGAL BILLING RATE GROUP No Experience 1 2 3 to 6 7 to 10 11 to 20 21 to 50 >50 Ohio

$40 or less 40.9% 36.4% 12.5% — 9.1% 7.4% 4.5% 14.5%$41-50 22.7% — 12.5% 12.5% 13.6% 3.7% — 9.9%$51-60 4.5% 18.2% 12.5% 6.2% — 14.8% 4.5% 8.6%$61-70 — — 12.5% 6.2% 13.6% — — 5.3%$71-80 22.7% 9.1% 9.4% 31.2% 18.2% 29.6% 18.2% 19.7%$81-90 — — 9.4% 12.5% 4.5% 7.4% 4.5% 5.9%$91-100 9.1% 27.3% 6.2% 25.0% 22.7% 18.5% 18.2% 16.4%$101-110 — 9.1% 6.2% 6.2% 9.1% 3.7% 9.1% 5.9%$111-120 — — — — — 7.4% 9.1% 2.6%$121-130 — — 12.5% — 4.5% — 9.1% 4.6%$131-140 — — — — 4.5% 7.4% 4.5% 2.6%>$140 — — 6.2% — — 18.2% 3.9% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

3 Years Experience

$40 or less 9.1% 13.3% 5.3% — 4.5% 3.6% 4.8% 5.4%$41-50 18.2% 6.7% 7.9% 10.0% 9.1% 7.1% — 8.4%$51-60 22.7% 6.7% — 10.0% 4.5% 3.6% — 6.0%$61-70 9.1% 6.7% 10.5% — 13.6% 14.3% — 8.4%$71-80 22.7% 20.0% 18.4% 30.0% 13.6% 10.7% 14.3% 18.1%$81-90 4.5% 6.7% 23.7% 20.0% 9.1% 14.3% 14.3% 14.5%$91-100 4.5% 20.0% 13.2% 10.0% 22.7% 17.9% 9.5% 13.9%$101-110 9.1% 13.3% 5.3% 10.0% 13.6% 3.6% 14.3% 9.0%$111-120 — 6.7% — — 4.5% 10.7% — 3.0%$121-130 — — 2.6% 5.0% 4.5% 3.6% 14.3% 4.2%$131-140 — — 5.3% — — 7.1% 4.8% 3.0%>$140 — — 7.9% 5.0% — 3.6% 23.8% 6.0% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

5 Years Experience

$40 or less 8.0% 7.1% 2.7% — 4.0% 3.6% — 3.5%$41-50 4.0% 21.4% 2.7% 4.5% 8.0% 3.6% 4.8% 5.8%$51-60 4.0% 7.1% 5.4% 4.5% — — — 2.9%$61-70 16.0% — 13.5% 13.6% 12.0% 3.6% — 9.3%$71-80 32.0% 14.3% 10.8% 18.2% 8.0% 21.4% 14.3% 16.9%$81-90 12.0% 7.1% 13.5% 18.2% 20.0% 3.6% 4.8% 11.6%$91-100 12.0% 28.6% 18.9% 4.5% 20.0% 25.0% 14.3% 17.4%$101-110 — — 5.4% 9.1% 8.0% 10.7% — 5.2%$111-120 4.0% 7.1% 5.4% 4.5% 16.0% 3.6% 9.5% 7.0%$121-130 4.0% 7.1% 8.1% 13.6% 4.0% 10.7% 4.8% 7.6%$131-140 — — 2.7% — — 10.7% 19.0% 4.7%>$140 4.0% — 10.8% 9.1% — 3.6% 28.6% 8.1% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

10 Years Experience

$40 or less 6.7% 8.0% 3.3% — 3.4% — 3.1%$41-50 3.3% 4.0% 5.0% 3.7% 3.1% 3.4% — 3.6%$51-60 3.3% 12.0% 1.7% 3.7% 3.1% — 4.8% 3.6%$61-70 3.3% — 6.7% — 6.2% 3.4% — 3.6%$71-80 26.7% 8.0% 6.7% 14.8% 6.2% 6.9% 9.5% 10.7%$81-90 6.7% 8.0% 15.0% 14.8% 9.4% 10.3% 4.8% 10.7%$91-100 26.7% 32.0% 15.0% 22.2% 25.0% 17.2% 9.5% 20.5%$101-110 10.0% 8.0% 15.0% 14.8% 18.8% 10.3% 4.8% 12.5%$111-120 6.7% 4.0% 6.7% 11.1% 9.4% 13.8% 4.8% 8.0%$121-130 — 12.0% 8.3% 7.4% 15.6% 6.9% 9.5% 8.5%$131-140 — — — — — 10.3% 14.3% 2.7%>$140 6.7% 4.0% 16.7% 7.4% 3.1% 13.8% 38.1% 12.5% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%





Exhibit 53 displays the impact of firm size on methods for client billing for paralegals.

EXHIBIT 53 Paralegal Client Billing Methods by Size of Firm | 2013


Billing Method for Paralegals 1 2 3 to 6 7 to 10 11 to 20 21 to 50 >50 Ohio

Included with Attorney Fee 43.0% 31.7% 35.5% 10.4% 24.6% 10.0% 2.4% 24.7%Time 50.0% 56.1% 56.2% 79.2% 73.7% 85.0% 90.4% 68.0%Fee Schedule 7.0% 12.2% 8.3% 10.4% 1.8% 5.0% 7.2% 7.3% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Average Workweek and Time-Keeping Practices Attorneys report a varied workweek as to billable hours and other activities comprising their professional time. For example, Exhibit 54 shows the range of time spent on various activities. Median values for compensable work time are 33 hours per week for those in private practice, 40 hours per week for those not in private practice and 48 hours for total professional hours for all private practice respondents, 40 hours for house counsel and 43 hours for government lawyers.

EXHIBIT 54 Distributions of Hours in Average Workweek | 2013


Total Billable Hours 957 38 25 33 40 55Total Hours 1005 45 40 48 55 65Administration 1053 4 2 4 4 8Networking / Marketing 1036 3 1 3 4 8Nonlegal work 969 7 8 8 8 8Pro Bono Hours/Year 978 167 5 20 50 150CLE Hours/Year 1014 285 15 24 40 150

House Counsel

Total Billable Hours 140 39 30 40 45 55Total Hours 138 48 45 50 55 63

Government Lawyers

Total Billable Hours 298 38 30 40 45 50Total Hours 284 44 40 43 50 60Administration 305 5 3 4 8 8Networking / Marketing 300 4 2 3 8 8





Hourly rate billing dominates flat rate and contingency fee billing. (Exhibit 55). Approximately one day per week is devoted to office administration and marketing (Median hours spent per week are approximately five for administration and three for marketing. (Exhibit 56).

House counsel identify three areas of time commitments with transaction work, litigation and compliance work dominating their workload. (Exhibit 57).

EXHIBIT 55 Distributions of Hours in Average Work Week, Private Practitioners Who Bill by the Hour, Via a Flat Fee or on a Contingency Fee Basis | 2013

Hourly Billing Flat Rate Billing Contingency Fee

Hours per Week N % N % N %

<6 109 10.7 251 28.1 254 29.16 to 12 141 13.8 158 17.7 78 8.913 to 19 126 12.4 91 10.2 44 520 to 26 162 15.9 75 8.4 39 4.527 to 33 122 12.0 37 4.1 21 2.434 to 40 147 14.4 29 3.2 30 3.441 to 47 76 7.5 20 2.2 28 3.248+ 76 7.5 21 2.3 37 4.2NA 60 5.9 212 23.7 342 39.2 Total 1019 100% 894 100% 873 100%

EXHIBIT 56 Distributions of Work Week Components, Office Administration, Marketing, Community Work and Non-Legal Employment | 2013

Office Administration Networking Nonlegal Employment

Hours per Week N % N % N %

1 107 10.2 264 25.5 241 23.62 224 21.3 219 21.1 179 17.53 187 17.8 187 18.1 152 14.94 to 6 303 28.8 150 14.5 154 15.17 to 11 116 11 50 4.8 46 4.512 to 16 33 3.1 20 1.9 18 1.817+ 22 2.1 7 0.7 10 1NA 61 5.8 139 13.4 221 21.6 Total 1053 100% 1036 100% 1021 100%

EXHIBIT 57 Distributions of Three Areas of Time Commitment, House Counsel | 2013

First Area Second Area Third Area Areas Where Time is Spent N % N % N %

Transaction Work 47 31.5 17 11.4 8 5.2Litigation 37 24.8 13 8.7 15 9.8Compliance 35 23.5 23 15.4 23 15.0Outside Counsel Management 7 4.7 20 13.4 24 15.7Government Affairs / External Relations 4 2.7 10 6.7 12 7.8Document / Records Management 4 2.7 19 12.8 16 10.5Staff Retention and Development 4 2.7 8 5.4 11 7.2Information Technology / Management 4 2.7 9 6.0 8 5.2C-Suite Relations 2 1.3 10 6.7 8 5.2Mergers & Acquisitions 2 1.3 7 4.7 6 3.9Board Relations 2 1.3 4 2.7 10 6.5Cost Control 1 0.7 9 6.0 12 7.8 Totals 149 100% 149 100% 153 100%





Office Management Practices: Likely Decisions During 2013

Law offices vary as to a myriad number of decisions they face during 2013. Exhibits 58-60 differentiate between practice category.

EXHIBIT 58 Ranked Likelihood of Occurrence in 2013, Private Practitioners

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

18

51

35

12

19

34

32

14

21

47

43

50

24

37

21

12

40

25

44

37

23

32

32

33

39

14

22

12

78

46

59

77

64

55

59

71

67

40

42

38

56

47

64

68

44

52

41

43

49

47

46

34

26

34

46

40

3

2

5

9

15

9

7

13

10

10

12

9

17

13

11

16

12

19

11

14

23

15

16

24

23

31

14

34

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

5

5

6

6

7

9

12

21

19

14

¢ Very likely ¢ Likely ¢ Unlikely ¢ Not Applicable

Lawyer salary increases

Billing rates adjusted up

CLE course participation reduced

Lawyer salary increases delayed

New lawyer offers

New lawyer offers retracted/delayed

Bill payments to vendors delayed

Line of credit increased

Alternatives to hourly billing tested

Non-lawyer staff benefits reduced / Co-sharing increased

Work hours reduced

Non-lawyer staff hiring freeze

Office lease renegotiated

CLE course participation increased

Non-lawyer bonuses curtailed

Rate freezes offered to selected clients

Billing rates unchanged

Lawyer bonuses offered

Pro bono work increased

Non-lawyer staff layoffs

Lawyer bonuses curtailed

Billing rates adjusted down

Capital contributions increased

Prompt payment discounts offered to clients

Pro bono work reduced

Lawyer layoffs

Lawyer hiring freeze

Security deposits taken on deferred fees





EXHIBIT 59 Ranked Likelihood of Occurrence in 2013, Government Lawyers

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

73

78

82

57

76

76

61

59

45

38

42

6

5

14

10

36

8

13

11

14

9

22

18

90

21

7

7

6

13

8

21

18

36

29

23

3

1

1

1

1

3

3

8

9

10

12

17

¢ Very Likely ¢ Likely ¢ Unlikey ¢ Not Applicable



Lawyer layoffs

New lawyer offers

New lawyer offers retracted / delayed






Work hours reduced

Non-lawyer staff benefits reduced / co-sharing increased

EXHIBIT 60 Ranked Likelihood of Occurrence in 2013, House Counsel

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

85

93

64

70

86

84

80

70

38

59

67

48

6

4

33

13

4

4

5

7

3

9

6

15

8

2

1

15

8

11

13

20

52

25

17

26

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

6

8

10

11

¢ Very Likely ¢ Likely ¢ Unlikely ¢ Not Applicable



Work hours reduced

Lawyer layoffs


New lawyer offers retracted/delayed


New lawyer offers

Non-lawyer staff benefits reduced / co-sharing increased








Office Management Trends, 2001-2013

Frequency of Keeping Time Records Over time, private practitioners varied as to keeping time records, while the choice of tracking unit for their time has remained relatively constant, as shown in Exhibits 61 and 62.

EXHIBIT 61

FREQUENCY OF KEEPING RECORDS

% OF RESPONDENTS

(2013)

% OF RESPONDENTS

(2010)

% OF RESPONDENTS

(2007)

% OF RESPONDENTS

(2004)

% OF RESPONDENTS

(2001)

Always 63% 62% 68% 69% 56%

Usually 21 21 19 20 25

Sometimes 13 13 11 09 15

Never 03 04 02 02 04

EXHIBIT 62

TRACKING UNIT (IN MINUTES)

% OF RESPONDENTS

(2013)

% OF RESPONDENTS

(2010)

% OF RESPONDENTS

(2007)

% OF RESPONDENTS

(2004)

% OF RESPONDENTS

(2001)

6 73% 69% 65% 65% 62%

10 9 9 10 10 9

15 15 19 21 21 22

30 2 2 2 2 2

None 1 1 2 2 5





Hourly Rate Setting PracticesThe time since respondents last changed their hourly rate is shown as Exhibit 63. The trend is to delay rate increases more frequently than in the past. Respondents continue to delay increasing their hourly rates with 64 percent of the respondents not changing their rates in one year or more compared with 61 percent in 2001.

EXHIBIT 63

MONTHS SINCE CHANGE% OF

RESPONDENTS (2013)

% OF RESPONDENTS

(2010)

% OF RESPONDENTS

(2007)

% OF RESPONDENTS

(2004)

% OF RESPONDENTS

(2001)

0-6 28% 23% 32% 29% 24%

7-11 8 10 14 16 15

12-24 30 35 33 32 33

>24 34 32 21 24 28

The percent increase in the level of hourly rates since the last change varies over time, as shown in Exhibit 64.

EXHIBIT 64

AMOUNT OF INCREASE% OF

RESPONDENTS (2013)

% OF RESPONDENTS

(2010)

% OF RESPONDENTS

(2007)

% OF RESPONDENTS

(2004)

% OF RESPONDENTS

(2001)

5% or less 36% 33% 26% 23% 22%

6-10% 40 34 45 41 38

11-19% 13 18 19 23 20

20+% 12 15 10 14 20





UncollectablesUncollectables are an important issue in many practices and firms. Over time, there has been some improvement in the proportion of bad debts as shown in Exhibit 65.

EXHIBIT 65

PERCENT UNCOLLECTABLE% OF

RESPONDENTS (2013)

% OF RESPONDENTS

(2010)

% OF RESPONDENTS

(2007)

% OF RESPONDENTS

(2004)

% OF RESPONDENTS

(2001)

2% or less 42% 35% 36% 30% 37%

3-8% 28 30 28 33 30

9-12% 18 18 19 21 18

13+% 12 17 17 6 15

Over time, less than 30 percent of respondents add a service charge on a delinquent account, as shown in Exhibit 66.

EXHIBIT 66

USE OF SERVICE CHARGE ON DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS

% OF RESPONDENTS

(2013)

% OF RESPONDENTS

(2010)

% OF RESPONDENTS

(2007)

% OF RESPONDENTS

(2004)

Always 5% 7% 3% 3%

Often 6 7 7 7

Rarely 17 16 18 18

Never 73 71 72 72





Practices Regarding Contingency Fees Attorneys report steady use of the contingency fee for billing their work over time as shown (Exhibit 67). The rate schedule varies little over time, as shown in Exhibit 68.

EXHIBIT 67

USE OF CONTINGENCY % OF

RESPONDENTS (2013)

% OF RESPONDENTS

(2010)

% OF RESPONDENTS

(2007)

% OF RESPONDENTS

(2004)

% OF RESPONDENTS

(2001)

For a majority of work 13% 11% 10% 13% 10%

For less than half of work 31 30 33 27 34

No / Not Applicable 55 59 52 53 56

Other NA NA 6 16 NA

EXHIBIT 68

RATE SCHEDULE% OF

RESPONDENTS (2013)

% OF RESPONDENTS

(2010)

% OF RESPONDENTS

(2007)

% OF RESPONDENTS

(2004)

% OF RESPONDENTS

(2001)

33.3% usually; 40% (complex cases)

45% 38% 36% 35% 36%

33.3% for all cases 38 36 42 41 45

20-25% for all cases; 33.3%+ (complex cases)

5 11 7 14 9

Varied/combinations of above

11 9 9 10 8





Comparative Use of On-Line Research Tools, 2013Attorneys report relatively consistent use of on-line research tools as shown in Exhibits 69 to 71.

EXHIBIT 69 Use of On-Line Research Tools, Private Practitioners | 2013

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

94

97

88

81

28

29

17

2

1

33

26

6

4

8

15

16

17

30

2

112

2

3

23

29

46

¢ Primarily ¢ Sometimes (First Cut) ¢ Once Used / Dropped ¢ Never Used

LexisNexis

Westlaw

Versus Law

Lois Law

Google Scholar

Fastcase

Casemaker

EXHIBIT 70 Use of On-Line Research Tools, Government Lawyers | 2013

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

97

97

97

81

23

19

16

2

10

27

22

2

1

14

37

23

22

1

21

2

3

30

31

40


LexisNexis

Casemaker

Versus Law

Lois Law

Google Scholar

Fastcase

Westlaw

EXHIBIT 71 Use of On-Line Research Tools, House Counsel | 2013

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

98

99

95

84

28

23

22

1

4

10

31

25

3

3

34

16

20

2

1

2

10

27

30

33


LexisNexis

Casemaker

Versus Law

Lois Law

Google Scholar

Fastcase

Westlaw





Comparative Use of Law Office Hardware and Software Technologies, 2013

EXHIBIT 72 Use of Hardware and Software Products and Tools, Private Practitioners | 2013

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

7

8

14

15

16

16

25

27

31

32

40

57

61

65

66

80

92

94

95

5

2

10

10

26

3

14

4

2

13

13

10

3

10

6

5

1

1

6

33

3

2

1

4

7

8

35

4

1

1

3

5

5

2

1

1

3

83

57

72

74

56

77

54

61

33

50

47

32

34

19

24

14

6

5

2

¢ In Use ¢ Considering ¢ Once Used / Dropped ¢ Never Used

Mac computer

Paperless office

Blackberry Phone/Tablet

Windows Phone/Tablet

eDiscovery Software

Trial Presentation Software

iPhone/Tablet

Cloud Computing (i.e., Clio, Dropbox, Google Apps, etc.)

Droid Phone/Tablet

Voice Recognition Software

Document Assembly / Automation Software

WordPerfect

Scanner

MS Word

Online CLE

Accounting Software

Electronic Calendaring

Time & Billing Software

PC





EXHIBIT 73 Use of Hardware and Software Products and Tools, Government Lawyers | 2013

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

4

6

8

11

11

11

13

14

15

17

27

27

30

35

48

73

77

92

96

92

86

87

65

73

81

79

74

55

70

65

29

61

40

42

21

19

7

2

2

3

1

14

7

5

7

2

6

5

42

9

10

1

4

3

1

2

3

5

4

24

2

1

3

5

28

7

3

2

1

15

10

3



Accounting Software




eDiscovery Software

Droid Phone/Tablet

WordPerfect


Mac Computer


Paperless Office

MS Word

Scanner

Online CLE



iPhone/Tablet

PC





EXHIBIT 74 Use of Hardware and Software Products and Tools, House Counsel | 2013

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

8

44

7

7

5

4

2

4

4

11

1

6

1

1

2

82

89

46

76

75

74

68

55

65

68

60

32

54

13

25

9

2

4

3

5

4

2

1

1

4

10

23

10

4

2

37

7

20

5

4

7

8

16

16

17

18

19

21

24

27

31

38

61

69

90

96

96

97


eDiscovery Software

Droid Phone/Tablet



Accounting Software

WordPerfect



Paperless Office


Mac Computer


MS Word

PC

Online CLE



iPhone/Tablet

Scanner





Other Aspects of Law Office Economics

This section summarizes these economic aspects of the private practice of law in Ohio:

Changes in client payment behaviors, 2013 vs. 2012 Likelihood of management shifts in law offices and practices Law office overhead expenses and gross receipts Staffing patterns for secretaries and paralegals Salary levels for associates, paralegals and secretaries

Private practitioners report significant changes in their clients’ behaviors with respect to billing and payments, a not atypical set of phenomena during recessions, and client payment practices shift with changing technologies (Exhibit 75).

EXHIBIT 75 Client Bill Payment Behaviors, Private Practitioners | 2012-2013

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

45.8

30.9

36.6

41.9

3.4

6.5

4.4

4.2

34.2

44.3

39.4

32.2

16.6

18.3

19.6

21.7

¢ Much More Often ¢ Slightly More Often ¢ Slightly Less Often ¢ Not at All

Paying bills later

Seeking to use credit cards

Seeking discounts

Seeking to pay bills over time





2012 Fixed Expenses and Gross Receipts per AttorneySole practitioners and firms provided financial information on 2012 operating expenses and gross revenues per attorney. Exhibits 76 and 77 distribute overhead expenses against gross receipts by firm size and office location.

EXHIBIT 76 Distributions of 2012 Fixed Expenses and Gross Receipts Per Attorney, and Overhead Rates by Size of Firm


Fixed Expenses / Attorney 1 2 3 to 6 7 to 10 11 to 20 21 to 50 >50 Ohio

<$5K 30.0% 18.3% 13.9% 8.9% 27.5% 10.5% — 21.3%$5-14.9K 21.1% 15.5% 17.2% 11.1% 7.5% 5.3% 4.8% 16.4%$15-24.9K 12.8% 11.3% 13.9% 13.3% — 5.3% 4.8% 11.2%$25-34.9K 5.8% 4.2% 4.1% 4.4% 10.0% 2.6% 2.4% 5.1%$35-44.9K 4.2% 8.5% 7.4% 6.7% 5.0% 10.5% 2.4% 5.7%$45-55.9K 7.7% 11.3% 17.2% 6.7% 12.5% 5.3% 9.5% 10.0%$60-89.9K 6.7% 11.3% 11.5% 20.0% 5.0% 34.2% 7.1% 10.4%$90-119.9K 6.1% 7.0% 8.2% 17.8% 17.5% 10.5% 21.4% 9.2%$120-149.9K 2.2% 4.2% 2.5% 4.4% 12.5% 10.5% 11.9% 4.3%$150-179.9K 1.9% 4.2% 0.8% 4.4% — 5.3% 21.4% 3.4%$180K or > 1.6% 4.2% 3.3% 2.2% 2.5% — 14.3% 3.0% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Gross Revenues / Attorney

<$35K 20.5% 3.8% — 2.1% — — — 9.8%$35-69.9K 17.0% 10.0% 2.1% — 2.2% — — 9.3%$70-104.9K 15.8% 8.8% 9.2% 8.3% 4.3% 2.4% — 10.8%$105-139.9K 7.7% 12.5% 10.6% 6.2% 8.7% 4.9% — 8.1%$140-174.9K 9.2% 16.2% 21.8% 6.2% 2.2% 9.8% 2.0% 11.3%$175-209.9K 10.4% 6.2% 16.9% 14.6% 15.2% 17.1% 2.0% 11.6%$210-244.9K 5.7% 8.8% 11.3% 10.4% 23.9% 14.6% 2.0% 8.7%$245-299.9K 5.7% 13.8% 14.8% 31.2% 13.0% 14.6% 15.7% 11.6%$300-499.9K 6.2% 16.2% 8.5% 18.8% 23.9% 36.6% 64.7% 15.3%$500K+ 1.8% 3.8% 4.9% 2.1% 6.5% 13.7% 3.6% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Overhead Rate

<9% 17.0% 6.7% 2.3% 4.3% 2.4% 5.7% — 9.8% 9-14% 10.7% 6.7% 6.2% 8.7% 7.3% — 5.3% 8.2%15-20% 12.6% 10.7% 11.7% 4.3% 7.3% 5.7% 7.9% 10.7% 21-26% 8.8% 10.7% 8.6% 8.7% 12.2% 22.9% 13.2% 10.1% 27-32% 10.1% 5.3% 13.3% 6.5% 7.3% 14.3% 21.1% 10.6% 33-38% 11.0% 20.0% 14.1% 21.7% 14.6% 14.3% 13.2% 13.8% 39-44% 6.6% 8.0% 20.3% 15.2% 17.1% 11.4% 15.8% 11.3% 45-50% 11.6% 10.7% 13.3% 15.2% 14.6% 20.0% 7.9% 12.5% 51-56% 2.5% 12.0% 0.8% 4.3% 4.9% 2.9% 5.3% 3.7% 57-62% 2.8% 5.3% 5.5% 4.3% 2.4% — 2.6% 3.5%>62% 6.3% 4.0% 3.9% 6.5% 9.8% 2.9% 7.9% 5.7% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%





EXHIBIT 77 Distributions of 2009 Fixed Expenses and Gross Receipts Per Attorney, and Overhead Rates by Office Location

OFFICE LOCATION

Greater Greater Greater Greater Northeast Northwest Southern Fixed Expenses / Attorney Cleveland Cincinnati Columbus Dayton Region Region Region Ohio

<$5K 22.0% 18.1% 18.1% 17.1% 22.3% 14.3% 32.6% 21.0%$5-14.9K 17.4% 22.2% 11.8% 17.1% 20.5% 16.3% 14.7% 16.8%$15-24.9K 11.4% 5.6% 18.1% 11.4% 8.9% 13.3% 6.3% 11.2%$25-34.9K 4.5% 4.2% 3.1% 5.7% 7.1% 7.1% 3.2% 4.9%$35-44.9K 4.5% 8.3% 6.3% 2.9% 3.6% 6.1% 7.4% 5.7%$45-55.9K 10.6% 8.3% 11.0% 14.3% 9.8% 9.2% 8.4% 10.0%$60-89.9K 10.6% 12.5% 7.1% 8.6% 8.9% 18.4% 8.4% 10.6%$90-119.9K 9.1% 9.7% 8.7% 11.4% 6.2% 9.2% 12.6% 9.2%$120-149.9K 3.8% 4.2% 3.9% 5.7% 5.4% 4.1% 4.2% 4.3%$150-179.9K 2.3% 5.6% 3.9% 2.9% 6.2% 1.0% 2.1% 3.4%$180K or > 3.8% 1.4% 7.9% 2.9% 0.9% 1.0% — 2.8%Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Gross Revenues / Attorney

<$35K 11.3% 8.0% 8.5% 7.9% 11.4% 10.7% 11.9% 10.3%$35-69.9K 10.0% 12.0% 7.1% 5.3% 8.9% 9.8% 10.1% 9.2%$70-104.9K 10.0% 4.0% 9.9% 5.3% 13.0% 10.7% 15.6% 10.6%$105-139.9K 8.0% 6.7% 8.5% 7.9% 9.8% 6.2% 7.3% 7.9%$140-174.9K 8.7% 12.0% 7.8% 7.9% 14.6% 16.1% 11.9% 11.4%$175-209.9K 9.3% 9.3% 13.5% 15.8% 9.8% 11.6% 13.8% 11.5%$210-244.9K 8.0% 12.0% 6.4% 13.2% 9.8% 8.0% 7.3% 8.6%$245-299.9K 11.3% 12.0% 14.2% 23.7% 8.1% 12.5% 6.4% 11.5%$300-499.9K 18.7% 20.0% 19.1% 10.5% 10.6% 13.4% 11.9% 15.4%$500K+ 4.7% 4.0% 5.0% 2.6% 4.1% 0.9% 3.7% 3.7%Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Overhead Rate

<9% 12.3% 11.0% 7.0% 8.1% 8.1% 9.9% 12.6% 10.0% 9-14% 11.5% 5.5% 10.9% 13.5% 7.2% 3.0% 5.8% 8.1%15-20% 10.0% 11.0% 13.3% 16.2% 15.3% 5.9% 5.8% 10.7% 21-26% 11.5% 9.6% 7.8% 2.7% 10.8% 11.9% 10.7% 10.0% 27-32% 16.9% 9.6% 7.8% 10.8% 9.0% 9.9% 8.7% 10.5% 33-38% 11.5% 15.1% 18.8% 13.5% 10.8% 13.9% 14.6% 14.1% 39-44% 8.5% 11.0% 7.8% 21.6% 9.0% 17.8% 12.6% 11.4% 45-50% 6.9% 16.4% 10.2% 10.8% 14.4% 13.9% 16.5% 12.4% 51-56% 0.8% 4.1% 2.3% — 3.6% 5.9% 7.8% 3.7% 57-62% 3.8% 2.7% 3.9% — 2.7% 6.9% 1.9% 3.5%>62% 6.2% 4.1% 10.2% 2.7% 9.0% 1.0% 2.9% 5.7%Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%





Starting and Current Salary Levels for Associates, Paralegals and Secretaries by Years of ExperienceExhibit 78 distributes 2013 salary levels by experience for associates, paralegals and secretaries.

EXHIBIT 78 Distributions of 2013 Associate, Paralegals and Secretary Salaries by Years of Experience

No Experience 3 Years Experience 5 Years Experience 10 Years Experience

Associate Salary Categories N % N % N % N %

<$60K 146 54.3 — — — — 21 9.3$60-72K 59 21.9 75 31 62 24.9 23 10.2$73-85K 10 3.7 64 26.4 58 23.3 45 19.9$86-98K 17 6.3 45 18.6 39 15.7 33 14.6$99-111K 22 8.2 17 7 18 7.2 38 16.8$112-124K 12 4.5 12 5 13 5.2 16 7.1$125-137K — — 21 8.7 19 7.6 27 11.9$138-151K — — 6 2.5 5 2 8 3.5$152-164K — — — — — — 7 3.1$165-172K — — — — — — 4 1.8$173-185K — — — — — — — —>$185K — — — — — — — — Total 269 100% 242 100% 249 100% 226 100%

Paralegal Salary Categories

<$22K 21 14.3 8 5 4 2.3 3 1.3$22-24K 21 14.3 21 13 5 2.8 5 2.2$25-27K 18 12.2 15 9.3 13 7.4 4 1.7$28-30K 25 17 21 13 14 8 13 5.7$31-33K 22 15 22 13.7 20 11.4 9 3.9$34-36K 12 8.2 32 19.9 29 16.5 23 10$37-39K 8 5.4 10 6.2 22 12.5 21 9.1$40-42K 14 9.5 16 9.9 22 12.5 29 12.6$43-45K — — 12 7.5 19 10.8 30 13$46-48K — — — — 17 9.7 31 13.5$49-51K — — — — 5 2.8 27 11.7>$51K — — — — 6 3.4 35 15.2 Total 141 100% 161 100% 176 100% 230 100%

Secretary Salary Categories

<13K — — — — 5 1.9 — —$13-15K 8 3.4 8 3.4 4 1.5 5 1.3$16-18K 15 6.4 15 6.4 7 2.7 4 1.1$19-21K 23 9.9 23 9.9 13 5 10 2.7$22-24K 39 16.7 39 16.7 30 11.5 22 5.9$25-27K 37 15.9 37 15.9 28 10.8 36 9.6$28-30K 35 15 35 15 35 13.5 26 6.9$31-33K 24 10.3 24 10.3 42 16.2 41 10.9$34-36K 25 10.7 25 10.7 33 12.7 45 12$37-39K 6 2.6 6 2.6 26 10 36 9.6$40-42K 12 5.2 12 5.2 13 5 57 15.2$43-45K 4 1.7 4 1.7 13 5 32 8.5$46-48K — — — — 9 3.5 19 5.1>$49K — — — — — — 40 10.6 Total 228 100% 233 100% 260 100% 376 100%





Associate & Paralegal Salaries by Firm Size and Office LocationExhibits 79 to 84 distribute 2013 associate, paralegal and secretary salary levels based on their level of experience by firm size and office location.

EXHIBIT 79 Distributions of 2013 Salary Levels of Associates by Level of Experience and Size of Firm


ASSOCIATE SALARY GROUPS No Experience 1 2 3 to 6 7 to 10 11 to 20 21 to 50 >50 Ohio

<$60K 80.0% 88.2% 77.8% 72.4% 50.0% 30.0% 12.2% 54.2%$60-72K 13.3% 11.8% 18.1% 20.7% 40.5% 37.5% 8.2% 22.3%$73-85K — — — 6.9% 2.4% 12.5% 4.1% 3.8%$86-98K — — — — 2.4% 15.0% 18.4% 6.1%$99-111K 6.7% — 2.8% — 4.8% 2.5% 32.7% 8.3%$112-124K — — 1.4% — — — 22.4% 4.5%$138-151K — — — — — — 2.0% 0.4%$152-164K — — — — — 2.5% — 0.4% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

3 Years Experience

<$60K 33.3% 50.0% 53.2% 46.4% 14.3% 18.9% — 30.4%$60-72K 33.3% 27.8% 25.8% 32.1% 38.1% 27.0% 10.5% 27.0%$73-85K 16.7% 5.6% 14.5% 17.9% 31.0% 29.7% 7.9% 18.6%$86-98K 8.3% — 4.8% 3.6% 9.5% 10.8% 10.5% 7.2%$99-111K — 11.1% 1.6% — — 8.1% 13.2% 4.6%$112-124K 8.3% 5.6% — — 4.8% 2.7% 42.1% 8.9%$125-137K — — — — 2.4% — 13.2% 2.5%$152-164K — — — — — — 2.6% 0.4%$165-172K — — — — — 2.7% — 0.4% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

5 Years Experience

<$60K 28.6% 31.6% 20.6% 10.3% 7.0% 5.1% — 12.7%$60-72K 21.4% 36.8% 34.9% 31.0% 20.9% 17.9% 8.1% 24.6%$73-85K 14.3% 5.3% 22.2% 27.6% 39.5% 35.9% 5.4% 23.8%$86-98K 21.4% 21.1% 15.9% 20.7% 9.3% 17.9% 13.5% 16.0%$99-111K — 5.3% 3.2% — 14.0% 10.3% 10.8% 7.0%$112-124K 7.1% — 1.6% 3.4% 2.3% 7.7% 13.5% 4.9%$125-137K 7.1% — 1.6% 6.9% 2.3% 2.6% 35.1% 7.8%$138-151K — — — — 4.7% — 8.1% 2.0%$152-164K — — — — — — 2.7% 0.4%$165-172K — — — — — — 2.7% 0.4%$173-185K — — — — — 2.6% — 0.4% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

10 Years Experience

<$60K 38.9% 22.2% 12.5% 7.7% 2.8% — — 9.5%$60-72K 5.6% 22.2% 23.2% — 2.8% 8.8% — 9.9%$73-85K 11.1% 22.2% 16.1% 30.8% 27.8% 20.6% 8.8% 19.4%$86-98K 11.1% 16.7% 10.7% 11.5% 19.4% 32.4% 2.9% 14.9%$99-111K 16.7% 16.7% 17.9% 19.2% 19.4% 11.8% 17.6% 17.1%$112-124K — — 8.9% 15.4% 2.8% 5.9% 11.8% 7.2%$125-137K 5.6% — 7.1% 11.5% 13.9% 11.8% 26.5% 11.7%$138-151K — — — — 2.8% 2.9% 17.6% 3.6%$152-164K 11.1% — 1.8% 3.8% 2.8% 2.9% 2.9% 3.2%$165-172K — — 1.8% — 2.8% — 5.9% 1.8%$173-185K — — — — — — 2.9% 0.5%>$185K — — — — 2.8% 2.9% 2.9% 1.4% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%





EXHIBIT 80 Distributions of 2013 Salary Levels of Associates by Location and Years of Experience

OFFICE LOCATION

Greater Greater Greater Greater Northeast Northwest Southern No Experience Cleveland Cincinnati Columbus Dayton Region Region Region Ohio

<$60K 48.1% 58.3% 49.1% 40.0% 51.4% 75.0% 63.0% 54.4%$60-72K 23.1% 22.2% 19.3% 40.0% 24.3% 9.4% 25.9% 22.2%$73-85K — — 3.5% 5.0% 10.8% 9.4% — 3.8%$86-98K 5.8% 2.8% 8.8% 5.0% 8.1% 3.1% — 5.4%$99-111K 7.7% 11.1% 12.3% 10.0% 2.7% 3.1% 11.1% 8.4%$112-124K 13.5% 5.6% 5.3% — — — — 4.6%$138-151K — — 1.8% — — — — 0.4%$152-164K 1.9% — — — 2.7% — — 0.8% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

3 Years Experience

<$60K 29.4% 31.4% 31.4% 11.8% 34.3% 50.0% 25.0% 31.1%$60-72K 21.6% 31.4% 23.5% 35.3% 22.9% 22.7% 41.7% 26.8%$73-85K 15.7% 17.1% 13.7% 29.4% 28.6% 13.6% 25.0% 19.1%$86-98K 7.8% 2.9% 3.9% 17.6% 5.7% 13.6% — 6.4%$99-111K 5.9% 2.9% 9.8% — 2.9% — — 4.3%$112-124K 13.7% 14.3% 11.8% 5.9% 2.9% — 4.2% 8.9%$125-137K 5.9% — 3.9% — — — 4.2% 2.6%$152-164K — — 2.0% — — — — 0.4%$165-172K — — — — 2.9% — — 0.4% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

5 Years Experience

$60-72K 20.8% 27.3% 28.1% 10.5% 15.8% 41.7% 34.8% 25.2%$73-85K 25.0% 12.1% 14.0% 42.1% 42.1% 12.5% 30.4% 24.0%$86-98K 16.7% 18.2% 14.0% 15.8% 18.4% 8.3% 13.0% 15.3%$99-111K 4.2% 9.1% 7.0% 15.8% 2.6% 16.7% 4.3% 7.4%$112-124K 6.2% 9.1% 8.8% — — — — 4.5%$125-137K 12.5% 12.1% 10.5% 10.5% 2.6% — — 7.9%$138-151K 6.2% — 1.8% — — — 4.3% 2.1%$152-164K — — 1.8% — — — — 0.4%$165-172K — — 1.8% — — — — 0.4%$173-185K — — — — 2.6% — — 0.4% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

10 Years Experience

<$60K 8.2% 6.1% 12.5% 5.9% 9.4% 12.5% 10.5% 9.5%$60-72K 10.2% 12.1% 4.2% — 12.5% 20.8% 10.5% 9.9%$73-85K 14.3% 18.2% 14.6% 17.6% 28.1% 25.0% 31.6% 19.8%$86-98K 14.3% 12.1% 12.5% 11.8% 15.6% 20.8% 21.1% 14.9%$99-111K 18.4% 18.2% 12.5% 35.3% 15.6% 8.3% 15.8% 16.7%$112-124K 4.1% 9.1% 10.4% 11.8% 9.4% 4.2% — 7.2%$125-137K 20.4% 6.1% 18.8% 5.9% 3.1% 8.3% 5.3% 11.7%$138-151K 4.1% 9.1% 4.2% — 3.1% — — 3.6%$152-164K 2.0% 3.0% 6.2% 5.9% — — 5.3% 3.2%$165-172K 4.1% 3.0% — 5.9% — — — 1.8%$173-185K — — 2.1% — — — — 0.5%>$185K — 3.0% 2.1% — 3.1% — — 1.4% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%





EXHIBIT 81 Distributions of 2013 Salary Levels of Paralegals by Level of Experience and Firm Size


PARALEGALS SALARY GROUP No Experience 1 2 3 to 6 7 to 10 11 to 20 21 to 50 >50 Ohio

<$22K 39.3% 28.6% 15.4% — 4.2% — 7.1% 14.6%$22-24K 21.4% 28.6% 11.5% 12.5% 8.3% 13.6% 7.1% 14.6%$25-27K 10.7% 7.1% 11.5% 12.5% 16.7% 18.2% 7.1% 12.5%$28-30K 14.3% 14.3% 23.1% 37.5% 8.3% 18.2% — 16.7%$31-33K — 7.1% 11.5% 18.8% 41.7% 9.1% 14.3% 14.6%$34-36K 7.1% — 11.5% — 4.2% 22.7% 7.1% 8.3%$37-39K 3.6% — 3.8% 6.2% 4.2% 4.5% 14.3% 4.9%$40-42K 3.6% 14.3% 7.7% 6.2% 12.5% 9.1% 21.4% 9.7%$43-45K — — — — — 4.5% 14.3% 2.1%$46-48K — — — 6.2% — — — 0.7%$49-51K — — 3.8% — — — 7.1% 1.4% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

3 Years Experience

<$22K 20.7% 6.7% 2.7% — — — — 5.1%$22-24K 17.2% 46.7% 10.8% — 9.1% 8.7% 7.1% 13.3%$25-27K 17.2% 20.0% 8.1% 11.1% 4.5% 4.3% — 9.5%$28-30K 17.2% — 16.2% — 13.6% 26.1% 7.1% 13.3%$31-33K 10.3% 6.7% 21.6% 27.8% 13.6% 4.3% — 13.3%$34-36K 10.3% 6.7% 27.0% 22.2% 31.8% 17.4% 14.3% 19.6%$37-39K — — 8.1% 5.6% 4.5% 13.0% 14.3% 6.3%$40-42K 3.4% 6.7% 5.4% 27.8% 4.5% 13.0% 14.3% 9.5%$43-45K 3.4% 6.7% — — 18.2% 8.7% 28.6% 7.6%$49-51K — — — 5.6% — 4.3% 7.1% 1.9%>$51K — — — — — — 7.1% 0.6% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

5 Years Experience

<$22K 10.7% — 2.5% — — — — 2.30%$22-24K 3.6% 5.0% 5.0% — — — 6.7% 2.90%$25-27K 3.6% 25.0% 5.0% — 11.1% 9.1% — 7.50%$28-30K 14.3% 15.0% 5.0% 9.1% 3.7% 9.1% — 8.00%$31-33K 7.1% 15.0% 20.0% 4.5% 7.4% 13.6% 6.7% 11.50%$34-36K 32.1% 15.0% 15.0% 13.6% 11.1% 13.6% 6.7% 16.10%$37-39K 7.1% 10.0% 17.5% 22.7% 14.8% 9.1% — 12.60%$40-42K 7.1% — 15.0% 22.7% 14.8% 13.6% 13.3% 12.60%$43-45K 3.6% 10.0% 10.0% 4.5% 7.4% 22.7% 20.0% 10.30%$46-48K 10.7% 5.0% — 9.1% 22.2% 4.5% 26.7% 9.80%$49-51K — — 2.5% 4.5% 3.7% — 13.3% 2.90%>$51K — — 2.5% 9.1% 3.7% 4.5% 6.7% 3.40% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

10 Years Experience

<$22K 6.8% — — — — — — 1.3%$22-24K 2.3% 8.0% 3.4% — — — — 2.2%$25-27K 4.5% — 1.7% — — 4.0% — 1.8%$28-30K 6.8% 16.0% 1.7% — 8.8% 4.0% 6.2% 5.7%$31-33K 4.5% 8.0% 3.4% — 2.9% 8.0% — 4.0%$34-36K 9.1% 8.0% 15.3% 4.2% 8.8% 12.0% 6.2% 10.1%$37-39K 9.1% 12.0% 15.3% 8.3% 2.9% 4.0% 6.2% 9.3%$40-42K 27.3% 8.0% 10.2% 12.5% 8.8% 12.0% — 12.8%$43-45K 9.1% 4.0% 15.3% 20.8% 17.6% 8.0% 12.5% 12.8%$46-48K 4.5% 4.0% 16.9% 8.3% 14.7% 28.0% 12.5% 12.8%$49-51K 9.1% 24.0% 6.8% 16.7% 5.9% 8.0% 31.2% 11.9%>$51K 6.8% 8.0% 10.2% 29.2% 29.4% 12.0% 25.0% 15.4% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%





EXHIBIT 82 Distributions of 2013 Salary Levels of Paralegals by Level of Experience and Office Location

OFFICE LOCATION

PARALEGALS SALARY GROUP Greater Greater Greater Greater Northeast Northwest Southern No Experience Cleveland Cincinnati Columbus Dayton Region Region Region Ohio

<$22K 10.0% 11.8% 8.7% 29.4% 18.2% 16.7% 11.8% 14.6%$22-24K 23.3% 17.6% 4.3% 5.9% 18.2% 22.2% 5.9% 14.6%$25-27K 6.7% — 13.0% 29.4% 4.5% 5.6% 29.4% 11.8%$28-30K 13.3% 5.9% 30.4% 17.6% 18.2% 16.7% 17.6% 17.4%$31-33K 13.3% 29.4% 17.4% — 13.6% 5.6% 23.5% 14.6%$34-36K — 23.5% 13.0% — 4.5% 16.7% 5.9% 8.3%$37-39K 10.0% — — 11.8% — 5.6% 5.9% 4.9%$40-42K 16.7% 5.9% 8.7% 5.9% 13.6% 11.1% — 9.7%$43-45K 6.7% — — — 4.5% — — 2.1%$46-48K — — 4.3% — — — — 0.7%$49-51K — 5.9% — — 4.5% — — 1.4% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

3 Years Experience

<$22K 3.1% 4.0% 4.2% 7.7% 14.8% — — 5.1%$22-24K 9.4% 16.0% — 15.4% 14.8% 33.3% 5.6% 12.7%$25-27K 12.5% 8.0% 12.5% — 11.1% 11.1% 5.6% 9.6%$28-30K 3.1% 12.0% 12.5% 23.1% 14.8% 5.6% 27.8% 12.7%$31-33K 21.9% 4.0% 16.7% 23.1% 14.8% — 16.7% 14.0%$34-36K 18.8% 24.0% 20.8% 7.7% 7.4% 27.8% 33.3% 19.7%$37-39K 6.2% 4.0% 12.5% 7.7% 3.7% — 11.1% 6.4%$40-42K 6.2% 20.0% 20.8% 7.7% — 11.1% — 9.6%$43-45K 12.5% 4.0% — 7.7% 14.8% 11.1% — 7.6%$49-51K 6.2% 4.0% — — — — — 1.9%>$51K — — — — 3.7% — — 0.6% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

5 Years Experience

<$22K 2.9% — 3.3% 7.7% 3.8% — — 2.3%$22-24K — 4.3% 3.3% 7.7% — 8.3% — 2.9%$25-27K 5.9% 8.7% — 7.7% 15.4% 12.5% 4.3% 7.5%$28-30K 5.9% 8.7% 6.7% — 15.4% 4.2% 13.0% 8.1%$31-33K 5.9% 4.3% 10.0% 23.1% 3.8% 16.7% 21.7% 11.0%$34-36K 26.5% 13.0% 6.7% 23.1% 26.9% 8.3% 13.0% 16.8%$37-39K 8.8% 17.4% 13.3% — 7.7% 25.0% 13.0% 12.7%$40-42K 14.7% 8.7% 13.3% 15.4% 7.7% 12.5% 17.4% 12.7%$43-45K 8.8% 17.4% 23.3% — — 8.3% 8.7% 10.4%$46-48K 11.8% 8.7% 10.0% 7.7% 15.4% 4.2% 4.3% 9.2%$49-51K 5.9% — 6.7% 7.7% — — — 2.9%>$51K 2.9% 8.7% 3.3% — 3.8% — 4.3% 3.5% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

10 Years Experience

<$22K 2.2% — 2.6% 4.8% — — — 1.3%$22-24K — — — — 2.8% 10.0% 3.6% 2.2%$25-27K 2.2% — 2.6% — 2.8% 3.3% — 1.8%$28-30K 2.2% 10.3% — 14.3% 5.6% 13.3% — 5.7%$31-33K 4.4% — 10.5% — 5.6% — 3.6% 4.0%$34-36K 8.9% 6.9% 5.3% 19.0% 11.1% 6.7% 17.9% 10.1%$37-39K 13.3% 10.3% 5.3% 4.8% 8.3% 10.0% 10.7% 9.3%$40-42K 11.1% 10.3% 7.9% 14.3% 13.9% 16.7% 14.3% 12.3%$43-45K 8.9% 17.2% 10.5% 9.5% 11.1% 16.7% 17.9% 12.8%$46-48K 15.6% 17.2% 7.9% 4.8% 16.7% 6.7% 21.4% 13.2%$49-51K 8.9% 3.4% 21.1% 14.3% 16.7% 10.0% 7.1% 11.9%>$51K 22.2% 24.1% 26.3% 14.3% 5.6% 6.7% 3.6% 15.4% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%





EXHIBIT 83 Percent Distributions of 2013 Salary Levels of Secretaries by Size of Firm


SECRETARY SALARY GROUP No Experience 1 2 3 to 6 7 to 10 11 to 20 21 to 50 >50 Ohio

<13K 25.5% 13.0% 4.2% — — — — 8.6%$13-15K 10.9% 13.0% 8.3% — 3.4% — — 6.3%$16-18K 9.1% 8.7% 12.5% — 3.4% 8.7% — 7.2%$19-21K 18.2% 26.1% 20.8% 18.2% 13.8% 13.0% 4.8% 17.2%$22-24K 18.2% 17.4% 27.1% 36.4% 24.1% 21.7% 14.3% 22.6%$25-27K 7.3% 8.7% 18.8% 13.6% 13.8% 13.0% 9.5% 12.2%$28-30K 3.6% 8.7% 6.2% 9.1% 17.2% 13.0% 19.0% 9.5%$31-33K 1.8% — 2.1% 9.1% 6.9% 17.4% 19.0% 6.3%$34-36K — — — 4.5% 6.9% 4.3% 4.8% 2.3%$37-39K 1.8% 4.3% — 4.5% 3.4% 4.3% 14.3% 3.6%$40-42K 3.6% — — 4.5% 3.4% — 9.5% 2.7%$43-45K — — — — 3.4% 4.3% 4.8% 1.4% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

3 Years Experience

<13K 5.5% — — — — — — 1.3%$13-15K 7.3% 14.3% 1.9% — — — — 3.5%$16-18K 10.9% 14.3% 7.4% — 3.3% 4.2% — 6.5%$19-21K 16.4% 14.3% 16.7% — — 8.3% — 10.0%$22-24K 16.4% 28.6% 18.5% 20.0% 16.7% 12.5% 4.8% 17.0%$25-27K 14.5% 9.5% 14.8% 32.0% 16.7% 16.7% 9.5% 16.1%$28-30K 14.5% 9.5% 20.4% 16.0% 20.0% 8.3% 9.5% 15.2%$31-33K 9.1% — 9.3% 4.0% 20.0% 16.7% 9.5% 10.0%$34-36K 3.6% — 9.3% 12.0% 6.7% 20.8% 28.6% 10.0%$37-39K — — — 4.0% 3.3% 4.2% 14.3% 2.6%$40-42K 1.8% 9.5% 1.9% 12.0% 10.0% 4.2% 4.8% 5.2%$43-45K — — — — 3.3% — 14.3% 1.7%$46-48K — — — — — 4.2% 4.8% 0.9% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

5 Years Experience

<13K 8.1% — — — — — — 1.9%$13-15K 3.2% 7.4% — — — — — 1.6%$16-18K 6.5% 3.7% 1.7% — 2.9% — — 2.7%$19-21K 11.3% 7.4% 5.0% — — 4.2% — 5.1%$22-24K 12.9% 25.9% 16.7% 3.4% 2.9% 8.3% 4.8% 11.7%$25-27K 12.9% 18.5% 13.3% 10.3% 5.9% 4.2% 4.8% 10.9%$28-30K 16.1% 7.4% 16.7% 17.2% 8.8% 20.8% — 13.6%$31-33K 9.7% 18.5% 16.7% 17.2% 29.4% 12.5% 9.5% 16.0%$34-36K 14.5% 3.7% 13.3% 17.2% 14.7% 4.2% 14.3% 12.5%$37-39K 3.2% 3.7% 6.7% 13.8% 14.7% 29.2% 9.5% 9.7%$40-42K — — 5.0% 6.9% 2.9% 8.3% 23.8% 5.1%$43-45K 1.6% 3.7% 1.7% 3.4% 11.8% 4.2% 19.0% 5.1%$46-48K — — 3.3% 10.3% 5.9% — 9.5% 3.5%>$48K — — — — — 4.2% 4.8% 0.8% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

10 Years Experience

<13K 2.8% — — — — — — 0.8%$13-15K 2.8% 4.7% — — — — — 1.4%$16-18K 2.8% 2.3% — — — — — 1.1%$19-21K 3.7% 2.3% 5.3% — — — — 2.7%$22-24K 7.4% 16.3% 3.2% 2.7% — 11.1% — 5.9%$25-27K 13.9% 11.6% 11.6% 2.7% 7.9% — 4.5% 9.7%$28-30K 7.4% 14.0% 10.5% — — 3.7% 4.5% 7.0%$31-33K 15.7% 11.6% 12.6% 10.8% 5.3% 3.7% — 11.1%$34-36K 11.1% 4.7% 13.7% 10.8% 15.8% 18.5% 4.5% 11.6%$37-39K 8.3% 4.7% 10.5% 16.2% 10.5% 7.4% 9.1% 9.5%$40-42K 9.3% 9.3% 18.9% 21.6% 23.7% 14.8% 9.1% 14.9%$43-45K 7.4% — 8.4% 16.2% 7.9% 14.8% 13.6% 8.6%$46-48K 1.9% 2.3% 2.1% — 15.8% 7.4% 27.3% 5.1%>$48K 5.6% 16.3% 3.2% 18.9% 13.2% 18.5% 27.3% 10.5% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%





EXHIBIT 84 Percent Distributions of 2013 Secretary Salary Levels by Experience and Office Location

OFFICE LOCATION

SECRETARY SALARY GROUP Greater Greater Greater Greater Northeast Northwest Southern No Experience Cleveland Cincinnati Columbus Dayton Region Region Region Ohio

<13K 2.6% 13.0% 3.0% 11.8% 10.3% 17.9% 7.5% 8.7%$13-15K 2.6% — 3.0% — 10.3% 10.7% 10.0% 5.9%$16-18K 10.3% 8.7% — — 7.7% 10.7% 10.0% 7.3%$19-21K 20.5% 17.4% 12.1% 11.8% 7.7% 32.1% 20.0% 17.4%$22-24K 12.8% 34.8% 15.2% 23.5% 28.2% 14.3% 32.5% 22.8%$25-27K 12.8% — 24.2% 11.8% 10.3% 10.7% 15.0% 12.8%$28-30K 17.9% 8.7% 12.1% 11.8% 12.8% — 2.5% 9.6%$31-33K 7.7% 4.3% 12.1% 17.6% — 3.6% — 5.5%$34-36K 5.1% 4.3% 3.0% 5.9% — — — 2.3%$37-39K — 8.7% 9.1% — 7.7% — — 3.7%$40-42K 5.1% — 3.0% 5.9% 5.1% — — 2.7%$43-45K 2.6% — 3.0% — — — 2.5% 1.4% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

3 Years Experience

<13K 2.4% — 3.1% 5.9% — — — 1.3%$13-15K — 3.8% — 5.9% 5.0% 14.3% — 3.5%$16-18K 2.4% 3.8% 3.1% — 12.5% 14.3% 7.0% 6.6%$19-21K 9.5% 7.7% 6.2% — 15.0% 7.1% 16.3% 10.1%$22-24K 14.3% 15.4% 3.1% 11.8% 17.5% 35.7% 20.9% 17.1%$25-27K 9.5% 19.2% 6.2% 17.6% 22.5% 10.7% 23.3% 15.8%$28-30K 16.7% 19.2% 15.6% 11.8% 5.0% 10.7% 25.6% 15.4%$31-33K 14.3% 11.5% 18.8% 5.9% 10.0% 3.6% 4.7% 10.1%$34-36K 14.3% — 18.8% 41.2% 2.5% 3.6% 2.3% 9.6%$37-39K 4.8% 3.8% 6.2% — 2.5% — — 2.6%$40-42K 4.8% 15.4% 15.6% — 2.5% — — 5.3%$43-45K 4.8% — — — 5.0% — — 1.8%$46-48K 2.4% — 3.1% — — — — 0.9% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

5 Years Experience

<13K 2.2% — 2.9% 5.6% 2.2% 2.7% — 2.0%$13-15K — — — — 2.2% 8.1% — 1.6%$16-18K 2.2% 3.6% — — 8.9% 2.7% — 2.7%$19-21K — 3.6% — 5.6% 8.9% 10.8% 6.5% 5.1%$22-24K 8.7% 21.4% 8.6% 5.6% 8.9% 13.5% 15.2% 11.8%$25-27K 8.7% 3.6% 2.9% — 15.6% 21.6% 15.2% 11.0%$28-30K 13.0% 17.9% 2.9% 16.7% 15.6% 13.5% 15.2% 13.3%$31-33K 17.4% 7.1% 8.6% 27.8% 8.9% 16.2% 30.4% 16.5%$34-36K 13.0% 17.9% 20.0% 16.7% 8.9% 2.7% 8.7% 11.8%$37-39K 17.4% 7.1% 14.3% 16.7% 4.4% 5.4% 6.5% 9.8%$40-42K 4.3% 3.6% 17.1% 5.6% 4.4% 2.7% — 5.1%$43-45K 4.3% 10.7% 17.1% — 4.4% — — 5.1%$46-48K 6.5% 3.6% 2.9% — 6.7% — 2.2% 3.5%>$48K 2.2% — 2.9% — — — — 0.8% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

10 Years Experience

<13K 1.5% — 1.7% 4.0% — — — 0.8%$13-15K — — — 4.0% 1.6% 3.4% 1.6% 1.4%$16-18K — 2.9% — — 3.4% 1.6% 1.1%$19-21K — — 1.7% — 7.8% 5.1% 1.6% 2.7%$22-24K 6.2% 8.8% — — 7.8% 6.8% 9.7% 6.0%$25-27K 4.6% 14.7% 3.4% 8.0% 20.3% 8.5% 9.7% 9.8%$28-30K 4.6% 2.9% 1.7% 4.0% 7.8% 16.9% 8.1% 7.1%$31-33K 9.2% 5.9% 1.7% 8.0% 14.1% 13.6% 19.4% 10.9%$34-36K 12.3% 8.8% 5.2% 4.0% 10.9% 13.6% 19.4% 11.4%$37-39K 4.6% 5.9% 19.0% 8.0% 9.4% 8.5% 9.7% 9.5%$40-42K 26.2% 20.6% 10.3% 36.0% 7.8% 6.8% 11.3% 15.0%$43-45K 9.2% 14.7% 17.2% 8.0% 3.1% 6.8% 3.2% 8.4%$46-48K 9.2% 5.9% 12.1% 4.0% 1.6% 1.7% — 4.9%>$48K 12.3% 8.8% 25.9% 12.0% 7.8% 5.1% 4.8% 10.9% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%





EXHIBIT PAGE

1 Selected Summary Demographics – Private Practitioners 72 Selected Summary Demographics – Government Lawyers 83 Selected Summary Demographics – House Counsel 84 Ranked Distribution of Survey Respondents by Practice Class 95 Distribution of Respondents by Practice Class and Gender 106 Distribution of Survey Respondents by Practice Class and Gender – All Practice Classes 107 Percent Distribution of Per Attorney Fixed Expenses, Ohio Practices and Firms | 2006-2012 118 Percent Distribution of Per Attorney Gross Revenues, Ohio Practices and Firms | 2006-2012 129 Percent Change in Four Categories of Attorney Net Income | 2000-2012 12

10 Percent Change in Hourly Billing Rates by Gender | 2001-2013 1311 Changes in Reported Workloads and Hourly Billing Rates | 2001-2013 1312 Summary of Economic Sentiment and Job Satisfaction Levels, Three Categories of Attorneys | 2013 1413 Shifts in Sentiment on Economic Conditions | 2013 and 2014 1514 Ranking of Agreement on Factors Influencing Switching Practice Area / Job Class, Private Practitioners | 2013 1515 Ranking of Agreement on Factors Influencing Switching Practice Area / Job Class, Government Lawyers | 2013 1616 Ranking of Agreement on Factors Influencing Switching Practice Area / Job Class, Government Lawyers | 2013 1617 Ranked Factors Perceived to Create Job-Related Stress, Private Practitioners | 2013 1718 Ranked Factors Perceived to Create Job-Related Stress, Government Lawyers | 2013 1819 Ranked Factors Perceived to Create Job-Related Stress, House Counsel | 2013 1920 Percent Distributions of Private Practitioners’ Involvement in Bar, Corporate, Community and Civic Affairs | 2013 1921 Percent Distributions Of Government Lawyers’ Involvement In Bar, Corporate, Community and Civic Affairs | 2013 2022 Percent Distributions of House Counsel Involvement in Bar, Corporate, Community and Civic Affairs | 2013 2023 Summary of Income, Billing Rate and Time Expenditure Changes | 2000 - 2013 2124 2012 Private Practitioner Net Income by Practice Class 2225 2012 Government Lawyer and House Counsel Net Income by Practice Class 2326 2012 Net Income by Practice Category (Full-time Only) 2327 2012 Net Income of Government Lawyers and House Counsel by Practice Category (Full-time Only) 2428 Percent Distribution of 2012 Private Practice Attorney Net Income by Income Group and Practice Class 24

29Percent Distribution of 2012 Government Worker and House Counsel by Net Income by Income Group and Practice Class

25

30 2012 Median Private Practitioner Median Net Income by Years in Practice and Practice Class 2631 2012 Median Government Worker and House Counsel Median Net Income by Years in Practice and Practice Class 2732 2012 Net Income by Primary Field of Law, Private Practitioners 2833 2012 Net Income by Field of Law, Full-time Private Practitioners 29

342012 Net Income by Primary Field of Law, Government Lawyers and House Counsel by Field of Law and Practice Emphases

30

35 2012 Net Income by Years of Practice, All Attorney Classes 3136 2012 Net Income by Firm Size, All Classes of Attorneys 3237 2012 Net Income, All Private Practitioners by Office Location 3338 2012 Net Income, All Full-time Private Practitioners by Office Location 3439 2012 Net Income, All House Counsel by Office Location 3440 2012 Net Income, All Government Attorneys by Office Location 3541 2012 Median Attorney Income by Practice Class and Gender 3642 2012 Median Attorney Income by Three Practice Groups and Gender 36

List of Exhibits





EXHIBIT PAGE

43 2012 Median Attorney Income, Full-time Private Practitioners by Years in Practice and Gender 3744 2012 Median Attorney Income, Full-time House Counsel by Years in Practice and Gender 3745 2012 Median Attorney Income, Full-time Government Lawyers by Years in Practice and Gender 3846 2012 Hourly Billing Rates by Firm Size, Years in Practice and Office Location 3947 2012 Hourly Billing Rates by Primary Field of Law and Practice Classification 4048 Distributions of 2013 Hourly Billing Rates for Associates and Paralegals by Years of Experience 4149 Distributions of 2013 Hourly Billing Rates for Associates by Office Location and Experience 4250 Distributions of 2013 Hourly Billing Rates for Paralegals by Office Location and Experience 4351 Distributions of 2013 Hourly Billing Rates for Associates by Firm Size and Years of Experience 4452 Distributions of 2013 Hourly Billing Rates for Paralegals by Firm Size and Experience 4553 Paralegal Client Billing Methods by Size of Firm | 2013 4654 Distributions of Hours in Average Workweek | 2013 46

55Distributions of Hours in Average Work Week, Private Practitioners Who Bill by the Hour, Via a Flat Fee or on a Contingency Fee Basis | 2013

47

56Distributions of Work Week Components, Office Administration, Marketing, Community Work and Non-Legal Employment | 2013

47

57 Distributions of Three Areas of Time Commitment, House Counsel | 2013 4758 Ranked Likelihood of Occurrence in 2013, Private Practitioners 4859 Ranked Likelihood of Occurrence in 2013, Government Lawyers 4960 Ranked Likelihood of Occurrence in 2013, House Counsel 4961 Frequency of Keeping Time Records – Frequency of Keeping Records 5062 Frequency of Keeping Time Records – Tracking Unit 5063 Hourly Rate Setting Practices – Months Since Change 5164 Hourly Rate Setting Practices – Amount of Change 5165 Uncollectables – Percent Uncollectable 5266 Uncollectables – Use of Service Charge on Delinquent Accounts 5267 Practices Regarding Contingency Fees – Use of Contingency 5368 Practices Regarding Contingency Fees – Rate Schedule 5369 Use of On-Line Research Tools, Private Practitioners | 2013 5470 Use of On-Line Research Tools, Government Lawyers | 2013 5471 Use of On-Line Research Tools, House Counsel | 2013 5472 Use of Hardware and Software Products and Tools, Private Practitioners | 2013 5573 Use of Hardware and Software Products and Tools, Government Lawyers | 2013 5674 Use of Hardware and Software Products and Tools, House Counsel | 2013 5775 Client Bill Payment Behaviors, Private Practitioners | 2012-2013 5876 Distributions of 2012 Fixed Expenses and Gross Receipts Per Attorney, and Overhead Rates by Size of Firm 5977 Distributions of 2009 Fixed Expenses and Gross Receipts Per Attorney, and Overhead Rates by Office Location 6078 Distributions of 2013 Associate, Paralegals and Secretary Salaries by Years of Experience 6179 Distributions of 2013 Salary Levels of Associates by Level of Experience and Size of Firm 6280 Distributions of 2013 Salary Levels of Associates by Location and Years of Experience 6381 Distributions of 2013 Salary Levels of Paralegals by Level of Experience and Firm Size 6482 Distributions of 2013 Salary Levels of Paralegals by Level of Experience and Office Location 6583 Percent Distributions of 2013 Salary Levels of Secretaries by Size of Firm 6684 Percent Distributions of 2013 Secretary Salary Levels by Experience and Office Location 67



1700 Lake Shore Drive Columbus, Ohio 43204

Phone: (800) 282-6556 Email: [email protected] www.ohiobar.org



1

EXHIBIT C


EASTERN DIVISION




: Defendants. :

DECLARATION OF JAMES L. HARDIMAN (pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746)

I, James L. Hardiman, hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the following are true




3. I am co-counsel of record in the above-styled case.

4. I am licensed to practice law in Ohio, and am further licensed to practice in the United

States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio and the United State Court of

Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

5. I have been continuously licensed since 1968.

6. My resume detailing my professional qualifications is attached as Exhibit C-1.

7. I have invested 49.2 hours in representing Plaintiffs in the above-styled case.




2







follows:

DATE SERVICES HOURS

11/25/13 Telephone conference with Robert Hart re: representation .50

11/25/13 Telephone conference with Gary Daniels re: SB 193 .40

11/27/13 Edited and filed Motion to Intervene 1.50

12/1/13 Edited/revised Motion for TRO and PI 3.75

12/2/13 Edited/revised Motion for TRO and PI 1.75

12/3/13 Telephone conference with clients re: developments .40

12/3/13 Completed/edited and filed Motion for TRO and PI 2.75

12/4/13 Prepared for conference before Judge Watson 2.75

12/4/13 Conferred with clients 1.60

12/4/13 Conference before Judge Watson .50

12/5/13 Reviewed Memorandum Contra Plaintiffs’ Second

Motion for Preliminary Injunction 3.75

12/10/13 Edited/revised and filed Declaration of Max Russell Erwin 1.60

12/12/13 Conferred with clients re: depositions 2.75

12/12/13 Depositions with clients 3.65



3

12/13/13 Reviewed the Memorandum Contra to Intervenor’s

Motion for Preliminary Injunction 2.55

12/23/13 Completed and filed Reply Memo to Defendants’

Memorandum Contra to Intervening Plaintiffs’ Motion

for TRO and PI 4.55

12/23/13 Edited, revised, and filed Intervenor’s Complaint 1.75

1/3/14 Telephone conference with counsel re: oral arguments .50

1/5/14 Researched case law and prepared for oral arguments 4.50

1/7/14 Reviewed/outlined Opinion and Order, prepared memo

to co-counsel re: Opinion and Order, and forward copies

of Opinion and Order to Plaintiffs 2.50

1/10/14 Reviewed Motion to Expedite Appeal and researched rules

and case law 2.20

1/13/14 Telephone conference with co-counsel .50

1/13/14 Revised/edited Brief Opposing Motion for Expedited 1.75

Appeal in the 6th Circuit

1/13/14 Filed Corporate Disclosure Statement and Brief Opposing

Motion for Expedited Appeal .75




4

12. My total allowable costs incurred in the above-styled case include the $200.00 filing fee,

and $357.00 for mileage related to my travel from Cleveland to the December 4, 2013

Court Conference in Columbus and the client depositions on December 12, 2013 in

Columbus.


(49.2) by my reasonable rate ($300.00), comes to $14,760.00; my total costs come to

$557.00. Combined they come to a TOTAL of $15,317.00.



/s/ James L. Hardiman_____ James L. Hardiman



EXHIBIT D


EASTERN DIVISION




: Defendants. :

DECLARATION OF NAILA AWAN (pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746)

I, Naila Awan, hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the following are true and

correct to the best of my knowledge and belief:



3. I represented the Intervening Plaintiffs in the above-styled case.

4. I am licensed to practice law in Ohio and in the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Ohio and the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

5. I have been continuously licensed since November, 2011.

6. My resume detailing my professional qualifications is attached as Exhibit D-1.

7. I have invested 72 hours in representing Intervening Plaintiffs in the above-styled case.










follows:

DATE SERVICES HOURS

11/12/13 Drafted Motion for TRO/PI 6.70



11/20/13 Drafted Memo supporting Motion to Intervene 6.20

11/21/13 Drafted Memo supporting Motion to Intervene 7.0

11/23/13 Telephone call with co-counsel 1.50

11/23/13 Edited Memo supporting Motion to Intervene 3.50

11/26/13 Reviewed and edited Memo and Motion to Intervene 7.80

12/10/13 Drafted Reply to Memorandum Contra Plaintiffs’

Second Motion for Preliminary Injunction 5.0





12/18/13 Telephone call with co-counsel .70

12/23/13 Edited Reply to Memorandum Contra Plaintiffs’

Second Motion for Preliminary Injunction .70




1/3/14 Drafted Pro Hac Vice Motion .50

1/3/14 Prepared for upcoming oral arguments 6.50



1/13/14 Reviewed Motion to Expedite Appeals and drafted Brief

Opposing Motion for Expedited Appeal in the 6th Circuit 4.60






/s/ Naila Awan____________ Naila Awan



EXHIBIT E


EASTERN DIVISION




: Defendants. :

DECLARATION OF ANDREW K. HARVEY (pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746)

I, Andrew K. Harvey, hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the following are true




3. I represented the Intervening Plaintiffs in the above-styled case.

4. I am licensed to practice law in Ohio.

5. I have been continuously licensed since November, 2013.

6. My resume detailing my professional qualifications is attached as Exhibit E-1.

7. I have invested 51.1 hours in representing Intervening Plaintiffs in the above-styled case.










follows:

DATE SERVICES HOURS

11/20/13 Researched and started to write memo regarding Rule 24

Intervention 6.30

11/21/13 Researched and completed Rule 24 intervention memo 4.70

12/2/13 Meeting regarding 11th Amendment immunity memo .10

12/2/13 Researched and outlined 11th Amendment immunity memo 4.40

12/3/13 Completed research and wrote 11th Amendment immunity

Memo 7.50

12/6/13 Wrote email to Naila regarding S.B. 193 memoranda contra

Issues .20

12/6/13 Wrote email/memo to Naila analyzing strategies for

responding to S.B. 193 memoranda contra .40

12/9/13 Began drafting a comprehensive memo to Naila regarding

ways to distinguish S.B. 193 memoranda contra .30

12/10/13 Completed memo to Naila regarding ways to distinguish

S.B. 193 memoranda contra 2.0

1/15/14 Researched and outlined a memo regarding the availability

of attorney’s fees for a preliminary injunction 2.50



1/21/14 Drafted a memo regarding the availability of attorney’s

fees for a preliminary injunction .40

1/23/14 Researched and wrote memo regarding attorney’s fees

(several issues) 3.30

1/24/14 Wrote memo regarding attorney’s fees (several issues) 1.30





1/30/14 Researched and wrote memo regarding attorney’s fees 1.50

1/30/14 Conference with Freda regarding attorney’s fees .20

1/30/14 Researched and wrote email to co-counsel regarding

attorney’s fees 2.10

2/18/14 Collected, compiled attorney time and declarations 2.90

2/19/14 Compiled attorney time and declarations N/C

2/24/14 Cite-checked and edited petition for fees 1.50

2/25/14 Formatted petition and documents for filing N/C








/s/ Andrew K. Harvey______ Andrew K. Harvey



1

EXHIBIT F


EASTERN DIVISION




: Defendants. :

DECLARATION OF RICHARD B. SAPHIRE (pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746)

I, Richard B. Saphire, hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the following are true



2. I have personal knowledge of the matters to which I attest.

3. I am licensed to practice law by the Supreme Court of Ohio, and am further licensed to

practice in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio and the

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

4. I have been continuously licensed since October 1971.

5. I have participated in litigation involving 42 U.S.C. §1983 in numerous cases over the

last 43 years.



2

6. I have participated in numerous §1983 cases involving various federal constitutional

issues as counsel of record and counsel for amici curiae.

7. I am an Emeritus Professor of Law at the University of Dayton School of Law, where I

taught since 1975 and from which I retired in 2013. I have also taught at the University of

San Diego School of Law, the Oklahoma City University School of Law, and Chase

College of Law of Northern Kentucky University.

8. I have, for many years, taught law school courses in Constitutional Law, Federal Courts,

Civil Liberties and Civil Rights, Civil Rights Litigation, and Complex Civil Litigation.

9. I have engaged in extensive academic writing in, among others, the areas of

Constitutional Law, Federal Courts, Voting Rights, and Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.

10. My resume detailing my professional qualifications is attached as Exhibit F-1.

11. In the above-styled case, I have devoted a total of 8.2 hours to the successful prosecution

of Intervening Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction.



follows:

DATE SERVICES HOURS

11/23/13 Conference call with co-counsel 1.50

11/23/13 Reviewed drafts of initial pleadings .10

11/26/13 Reviewed most recent draft of initial pleadings 1.0

11/29/13 Reviewed LPO answer .40

12/3/13 Reviewed final draft of Motion for TRO/Inj. 1.10



3

12/18/13 Conference call with co-counsel to discuss

litigation strategy and reply memo .70

12/19/13 Conference call with Mark Brown and co-counsel to

discuss coordinating strategy .20

12/19/13 Reviewed defendants’ response to our initial pleadings 1.40

1/2/14 Email exchanges with co-counsel N/C

1/2/14 Prepared for conference call with co-counsel N/C

1/3/14 Conference call with co-counsel .50

1/5/14 Prepared for conference call with co-counsel N/C


1/13/14 Conference call re: expedited appeal memo .50

2/6/14 Prepared declaration and fee request N/C

14. My customary hourly rate for §1983 litigation is $300 per hour.

15. I understand that the ACLU of Ohio Foundation will not directly seek reimbursement for

my services in this matter, but I am submitting these records to support the ACLU of

Ohio Foundation’s claim that an enhancement to the lodestar is justified.



/s/ rbs _ Richard B. Saphire



1

EXHIBIT G


EASTERN DIVISION




: Defendants. :

DECLARATION OF PAUL MOKE (pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746)

I, Paul Moke, hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the following are true and

correct to the best of my knowledge and belief:


2. I have personal knowledge of the matters to which I attest.

4. I am licensed to practice law by the Supreme Court of Ohio, and am further licensed to

practice in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio and the

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

5. I have been continuously licensed since November of 1982.

6. I have participated in litigation involving 42 U.S.C. §1983 in numerous cases over the

past 43 years.

7. I have participated in numerous §1983 cases involving various federal constitutional

issues as counsel of record and counsel for amici curiae.



2

8. Currently, I am an Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of Dayton School of Law,

where I have taught since 2007. In addition, I serve as Professor of Social and Political

Studies at Wilmington College in Wilmington, Ohio, where I have taught since 1976.

9. For many years, I have taught courses in Complex Civil Litigation, Civil Rights, and

Constitutional Law.

10. My resume detailing my professional qualifications is attached as Exhibit G-1.

11. In the above-styled case, I have devoted a total of 6.2 hours to the successful prosecution

of Intervening Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction.



follows:

DATE SERVICES HOURS

11/23/13 Conference call with co-counsel 1.50

12/3/13 Reviewed final draft of Motion for TRO/Inj. .50

12/18/13 Conference call with co-counsel to discuss litigation .70


1/3/14 Prepared Outline for Oral Argument 3.0

14. My customary hourly rate for §1983 litigation is $300.00 per hour.



3

15. I understand that the ACLU of Ohio Foundation will not directly seek reimbursement for

my services in this matter, but I am submitting these records to support the ACLU of

Ohio Foundation’s claim that an enhancement to the lodestar is justified.



/s/ Paul Moke_____________ Paul Moke



EXHIBIT A-1

Freda J. Levenson ACLU Of Ohio, Managing Attorney

4506 Chester Ave. Cleveland, Ohio 44103

[email protected]

Education: Shaker Heights High School - 1969 Wellesley College - BA 1973 University of Michigan Law School - JD 1976 Employment: Managing Attorney ACLU of Ohio (2014-present) Adjunct Professor CWRU Law School (1995-2005, 2008-2014) SAGES Presidential Fellow CWRU (2006, 2007), Baldwin Fellow (2007) Formerly a partner (litigation) at Altheimer & Gray (a commercial law firm in Chicago) Civic Activities: Cooperating Attorney ACLU of Ohio (2013) Shaker Heights Board of Education (Member: 1996-2012; President: 2000, 2001, 2006, and 2007; Vice President: 1998 and 1999) School Board Legislative Liaison (1996-1999, 2002-2005) Federal Relations Network Member (National School Boards Association appointed lobbyist) (1997-2012) Shaker Schools Finance & Audit Committee (Member 2005-2011) Managed School Levy, School Bond Issue, and School Board Candidate Campaigns (1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 2000, 2003) Founder: Night for the Red & White (1992); Committee Chair and/or Member (1993-2006) Shaker Schools Foundation (Trustee - 1993-2004) Fund for the Future (Trustee - 1999-2008) Shaker Family Center (Board Member - 1993-1995) Moreland on the Move Education Committee (Member - 1995-2008) 10,000 Villages (Board Member - 2005-2006)



Case: 2:13-cv-00953-MHW-TPK Doc #: 55-2 Filed: 02/27/14 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 971EXHIBIT C-1


EXHIBIT D-1



Andrew K. Harvey 13302 Cormere Ave., Apt. 305 Cleveland, Ohio 44120

(734) 276-0713 | [email protected]

Admitted to practice in Ohio, November 4, 2013 EDUCATION Case Western Reserve University School of Law, Cleveland, Ohio Juris Doctor, May 2013

• Honors: 2013 Stanley I. and Hope S. Adelstein Environmental Law Award – Third Place Prize; Dean’s Honor List: fall 2012, spring 2012; CALI Award: Lawyering Skills Core 3 (spring 2012); Noah Webster Law Scholar (2010-2013).

• Health Matrix: Journal of Law-Medicine: Executive Articles Editor on Editorial Board (2012-2013); Associate Notes Editor (2011-2012); Published in Spring 2013 edition of Health Matrix: Journal of Law-Medicine.

• Activities: Honors Fellow, CORE 3: Transaction, Writing and Skills (2012-2013); Tutor, The Writing Center (2012-2013); Environmental Law Society (2011-2013).

• Volunteering: 3Rs Program (2011-2012); The Legal Aid Society of Cleveland (2010-2011).

Manhattan School of Music, New York, New York Master of Music, Violin Performance, May 2008 University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan Bachelor of Music with High Honors, Violin Performance, April 2006 LEGAL EXPERIENCE American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, Cleveland, Ohio Post-Graduate Legal Fellow/Law Clerk, September 2013-Present Investigate and draft legal briefs, memoranda, complaints, and letters on many issues, regarding: free speech censorship, religious liberty, voting rights, federal and state civil procedure, and pregnancy discrimination. Support integrated advocacy efforts through legislative and policy research. Civil Litigation Clinic at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, Cleveland, Ohio Certified Legal Intern, September 2012-December 2012 Drafted discovery requests and responses and compiled documents to be sent to opposing counsel. Advocated on behalf of clients in court. Interviewed and counseled several clients. Investigated and responded to complaints. United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Detroit, Michigan Judicial Intern for The Hon. Mark A. Randon, July 2012-August 2012 Researched and drafted reports and recommendations on an array of issues, concerning: employee benefits, property claims, and torts. Regularly discussed cases with Magistrate Judge Randon. National Wildlife Federation, Great Lakes Regional Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan Legal Intern, May 2012-July 2012 Researched and drafted legal briefs on many issues, including: Clean Water Act, Section 401 water quality certification, the public trust doctrine, and attorney’s fees. Drafted a petition for judicial review of the conditional grant of a NPDES Vessel General Permit. Assisted with the public comment process relating to various state agencies’ certification of EPA’s proposed 2013 NPDES Vessel General Permit. Washtenaw County Trial Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan Judicial Intern for The Hon. Melinda Morris, August 2011 Wrote a draft of a court opinion for a legal malpractice case. Researched and drafted memoranda on several issues, concerning: corporate law and premises liability.

Case: 2:13-cv-00953-MHW-TPK Doc #: 55-4 Filed: 02/27/14 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 976EXHIBIT E-1


EXHIBIT F-1

Richard B. Saphire Professor of Law (Emeritus) University of Dayton School of Law I. Education:

Degrees: B.A. at Ohio State University (1967) J.D. at Chase College of Law (1971) (now at Northern Kentucky State University; (graduated first in class) LL.M at Harvard University (1975)

II. Professional History

* Professor of Law, University of Dayton School of Law (l982-2013; emeritus in 2013)).

* Visiting Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law, l987-l988; Summer, 2001

* Associate Professor of Law, University of Dayton School of Law, l980-l982 (tenured in l98l).

* Assistant Professor of Law, University of Dayton School of Law, l976-l980. * Assistant Professor of Law, Oklahoma City University School of Law,

l975-l976. * Adjunct Assistant Professor of Law, Northern Kentucky State University,

Chase Law School, l972-l974. * Director, Tenant Representation Project, Legal Aid Society of Cincinnati,

l973-l974. * Staff Attorney, Legal Aid Society of Cincinnati, l97l-l973.

III. Publications (representative):

Articles: * The Ideologies of Judicial Selection: Empiricism and the Transformation of the Judicial Selection Debate, 39 University of Toledo L. Rev. 551 (2008)(with Paul Moke) * The Voting Rights Act and the Racial Gap in Lost Votes, 58 Hastings L. J. 1 (2006)(with Paul Moke)(reprinted in, 23 Civil Rights Litigation and Attorney Fees Annual Handbook (S. Saltzman, ed. 2007) * Litigating Bush v. Gore in the States, 51 Vill. L. Rev. 229 (2006)(with Paul

Moke) * Ohio Constitutional Interpretation, 51 Cleve. State L. Rev. 437 (2004)(in Symposium) * Doris Day=s Constitution, 46 Wayne L. Rev. 1443 (2001)(in Symposium on



Constitutional Interpretation.) * Equal Protection, Rational Basis Review, and Impact of Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 88 Ky. L. Rev. 591 (2000) * Constitutional Predispositions, 23 U. Dayton L. Rev. 277 (1998) * Religion and Recusal, 81 Marquette L. Rev. 351 (1998) (in Symposium: Religion and the Judicial Process.) * Originalism and the Importance of Constitutional Aspirations, 24 Hastings Const. L. Q. 599 (1997) (in Symposium: Interpretive Methodologies: Perspectives on Constitutional Theory.) * The Constitutional Status of Hate Speech: Comments on Delgado and Stefancic, 23 N. Ky. L. Rev. 491 (1996) (in Symposium: Political Correctness in the 1990's and Beyond.) * Religious People and Public Life: Some Reflections on Greenawalt, 23 N. Ky. L. Rev. 655 (1996). * Diluting Justice on Appeal?: An Examination of the Use of District Court Judges Sitting By Designation on the United States Courts of Appeals, 28 U. Mich. J. L. Ref. 351 (1995) (with Michael Solimine.) *Qualified Immunity in Section 1983 Cases and the Role of State Decisional Law, 35 Ariz. L. Rev. 621 (1993). *The Effect of the Ohio Court of Claims Act on Civil Rights Actions in State and Federal Courts, 22 U. Tol. L. Rev. 167 (1991) (with Susan Brenner). *Reconsidering the Public Forum Doctrine, 59 U. Cin. L. Rev. 739 (1991). *Enough About Originalism, 15 N. Ky. L. Rev. (l988) (In Symposium on Constitutional Interpretation) *Schoring Up Article III: Legislative Court Doctrine in the Post CFTC v. Schor Era, 68 B.U.L. Rev. 85 (1988) (with Solimine) *Constitutional Theory in Perspective: A Response to Professor Van Alstyne, 78 Nw. U.L. Rev. l435 (l984) *Making Noninterpretivism Respectable: The Contributions of Michael J. Perry to Constitutional Theory, 81 Mich. L. Rev. 782 (1983) (Review Essay of M. Perry, The Constitution, the Courts and Human Rights (1982)) *The Search for Legitimacy in Constitutional Theory: What Price Purity?, 42 Ohio St. L.J. 335 (l98l) (In Symposium: Judicial Review Versus Democracy) *Specifying Due Process Values: Toward a More Responsive Approach to Procedural Protection, l27 U. Pa. L. Rev. lll (l978).

Book Chapters

*”Bringing Brown to Cleveland,” in Justice and Legal Change on the Shores of Lake Erie (Finkelman and Alexander, eds., 2012)(Ohio University Press)

* The Selection of Judges in Ohio, in The History of Ohioc Law 211-237 (M.Benedict and J. Winkler eds. 2004(Ohio University Press)) *Bringing Brown to Cleveland, in The History of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (P. Finkleman and R. Alexander, eds, 2012)(Ohio University Press)

Book Reviews:



*Book Review, 6 U. Dayton L. Rev. 359 (1981) (review of J. Choper, Judicial Review and the National Political Process (1981)) *Book Review, 58 Texas L. Rev. l475 (l980) (review of B. Woodward, S. Armstrong, The Brethern (l979)).

Other *Religion and American Law (Paul Finkelman, ed. 1999)(contributed several chapters to encyclopedia.) *Saphire, Response to Rhode's and Shaffer's "A Christian Theology for Roman Catholic Law Schools", 14 U. Dayton L. Rev. 25 (1988)*Some Reflections on the Success and Failure of the Constitution, 12 U. Dayton L. Rev. 351 (1986) (Bicentennial Essay) *Civil Rights Attorneys' Fees in Administrative Proceedings, National L.J. (September, 1984)*The Right to Community Care for the Mentally Retarded, Technical Report Series, Nisonger Center, Ohio St. Univ. 24 (1978).

IV. Recent Professional Activities

* General Counsel, ACLU of Ohio (2013-2014) *Board Member (at large), The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio *Senior Member and Past President of the Board of Directors of Homefull, Inc., a full- service, non-profit agency in Dayton that addresses all facets of homelessness in the Miami Valley *Member, Dayton Bar Association and its Federal Practice Committee *Member, American Bar Association *CLE presentations on a variety of topics (most recently on “The Impact of Twombly and Iqbal on Federal Pleading Practice” (Spring, 2011)) * Member, Steering Committee for the Ohio Constitutional Modernization Commission Colloquium * Cooperating Attorney, ACLU of Ohio (recent involvement as both direct counsel and amicus in a number of voting rights cases in Ohio and federal courts; participation in amicus briefs in the Sixth and Ninth Circuits). These cases include: Stewart v. Blackwell, 356 F. Supp. 2d 791 (N.D. Ohio), 444 F.3d 854 (6th Cir., 2006), superseded on mootness grounds, 473 F. 3d 692 (6th Cir. 2007); State ex rel. Colvin, et al. v. Jennifer Brunner, Case No. 08-1813 (N.D. Ohio, 2008).

V. Academic Responsibilities

Courses taught: Constitutional Law; Professional Responsibility; Complex Civil

Litigation; Civil Liberties Litigation; Federal Jurisdiction; Comparative Constitutional and Human Rights; Religion and the Law; (Religious) Morality and the Professional Life of a Lawyer.



1

EXHIBIT G-1

Paul Moke ______________________________________________________

6848 West State Route 73 Wilmington, Ohio 45177 (H) (937) 382-7284 (W) (937) 382-6661 ext. 415 Email: [email protected] ________________________________________________________________________ Educational Background: A.B. 1975 Wilmington College Wilmington, Ohio 45177

Major: Political Science Graduated magna cum laude (G.P.A. 3.94/4.00) M.A. 1976 The University of Chicago Chicago, Illinois

Major: Social Science Education J.D. 1982 The Ohio State University College of Law Columbus, Ohio with Honors in Law Ph.D. 1993 The University of Cincinnati Cincinnati, Ohio Major Field: American Politics Minor Fields: Public Administration and Criminal Justice

Dissertation: The Exclusionary Rule and the New Judicial Federalism (Dr. Howard Tolley, Chair)

Admitted to Practice: Ohio 1982 – present U.S. District Court Southern District of Ohio, 1983-present U.S. District Court Northern District of Ohio, 2002-present U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 2004-present



2

Faculty Experience: Professor of Social and Political Studies, Wilmington College, Wilmington, Ohio July 1986 – Present

Full-time faculty position at a career-oriented liberal arts undergraduate institution affiliated with the Society of Friends. Responsible for teaching introductory and advanced courses in American Political Systems, social science methods and statistics, Judicial Process, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Public Administration, and Political Problems. Promoted from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor in 1993; promoted from Associate Professor to Full Professor in 2001. Committee responsibilities have included: Committee on Faculty (elected position), Academic Policies Committee, Faculty Handbook Committee, Budget and Planning Committee, President’s Faculty Advisory Committee, and General Education Task Force. Elected Convener (President) of Wilmington College Faculty Meeting 1988-1990, 1994-1996, 2004-2008. Faculty Awards: Van Black Award for Outstanding Service to Students 1996, 2004

Outstanding Faculty of the Year 1993 Ohio Magazine Award for Outstanding Faculty 2003, 2006 Vice President for Academic Affairs, Wilmington College, Wilmington, Ohio 1996-2000

Served as chief academic officer at undergraduate institution of 1500 students and 70 full-time faculty. Designed curriculum, supervised faculty and academic staff, and managed a budget of $10 million. Principal accomplishments include creation of a new faculty evaluation system, re-accreditation of teacher licensure programs, hiring of ten new full-time faculty, and approval of the College’s first graduate program.

Corrections Experience: Director of Research and Development, Project Talents, Wilmington College,

Wilmington, Ohio. 1982-6 (full-time); 1993-5 (part-time). Managed a post-secondary correctional education and job training program for

medium-security offenders. Oversaw a $500,000 offender reintegration grant, researched recidivism rates of program participants and conducted training sessions on legal issues in corrections for officers at a state correctional facility. Responsibilities also included managing post-secondary correctional education



3

program at medium security correctional institution in southwest Ohio. Served as legislative affairs coordinator in Washington, D.C. and Columbus, Ohio when federal and state funding for post-secondary correctional education came under challenge in 1993-5.

Legal Experience: Paul Moke, Attorney at Law, Mt. Sterling and Wilmington, Ohio 1982 – present

Solo practitioner specializing in probate, bankruptcy, domestic relations, and malpractice law.

Law Clerk, Buckley, Miller, and Wright, Attorneys at Law, Wilmington, Ohio 1982-1984.

Part-time position focusing on administrative law and the defense of

personal injury and defamation actions. Pro Bono Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio 1985 - Present Served of counsel and later as lead counsel in several significant ACLU

cases, including State ex. rel. Maurer et al. v. Wilkinson, 71 Ohio St. 3d 513 (1994) (scope of governor’s clemency power under Ohio Constitution), White v. Clinton County Bd. of Commissioners, 75 Ohio St. 3d 416 (1996) (board of county commissioners must maintain full and accurate record of their proceedings), and Stewart v. Blackwell (Equal Protection and Voting Rights Act challenge against Ohio’s use of non-notice voting technology). Also served as State Secretary of the ACLU of Ohio Board of Directors, 1988-1990, Vice President of the ACLU of Ohio Board of Directors, 1990-1992, and President of the ACLU of Ohio Foundation and Affiliate, 1992-1994. I am currently serving on the ACLU of Ohio Board of Directors.

Publications:

Richard B. Saphire and Paul Moke, “The Ideologies of Judicial Selection: Empiricism and the Transformation of the Judicial Selection Debate,” 39 University of Toledo Law Review 551 (2008). Paul Moke and Richard B. Saphire, “The Voting Rights Act and The Racial Gap in Lost Votes,” 58 Hastings Law Review 1 (2006).



4

Id. in Steve Saltzman (Ed.), Civil Rights Litigation and Attorney Fees Annual Handbook, Vol. 23, Thompson/West Publishing Co. (2007). Richard B. Saphire and Paul Moke, “Litigating Bush v. Gore in the States: Dual Voting Systems and the Fourteenth Amendment,” 51 Villanova Law Review 229 (2006).

Paul Moke, “A Review of Joseph P. Viteritti’s, The Last Freedom: Religion from the Public School to the Public Square,” American Review of Politics, Fall and Winter, 2007-8. Paul Moke, “Paradigms of Due Process: A Review of John V. Orth’s Due Process of Law: A Brief History,” American Review of Politics, Fall 2003.

Mary Ellen Batiuk, Paul Moke, and Pamela S. Rountree, “Crime and Rehabilitation: Correctional Education as an Agent of Change – A Research Note,” 14 Justice Quarterly 167 (1997).

Paul Moke, et el., “Legal Dimensions of Correctional Education” in Correctional Education: Issues for Practitioners. National Center for Resear5ch in Vocational Education: The Ohio State University, 1986. Paul Moke and Jerry Holloway, “ Post-Secondary Correctional Education: Issues of Functional Illiteracy. The Journal of Correctional Education 1986.

Professional Presentations:

The Voting Rights Act and the Racial Gap in Lost Votes, Presentation at the Western Political Science Association, San Diego, California, March 2008.

The Equal Protection Clause and Voting Rights, Ohio Northern University College of Law, American Constitution Society Chapter, February 2007 The Racial Gap in Lost Votes, Northern Kentucky University, Chase College of Law, March 2004

Litigating Bush v. Gore in the States, University of Dayton School of Law, October 2003.

Ecological Inference and the Racial Gap in Lost Votes, The University of Kentucky Department of Political Science, February 2004

“Post-Secondary Correctional Education and Inmate Access to Ohio Instructional Grants: An Analysis of Recidivism Rates”. Presentation before the Joint Committee on Correctional Education, Ohio General Assembly, May, 1996.



5

“The Moral Reasoning of Inmate-Studentsw.” Presentation, Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences’ Annual Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, March, 1992.

“Legal Issues in Correctional Education.” Presentation, American Correctional Association Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, August 1983.

Personal: Married to Patti Kinsinger, two children, Daniel Moke and Anna Kinsinger

Chair, March of Dimes Clinton County WalkAmerica, Clinton County, Ohio, 1999

Head Swimming Coach, Clinton-Massie High School, 2003 – present. Head Swimming Coach, Clinton County YMCA, 1993 – 2004. Treasurer, Terri Thobaben for Clinton County Commissioner, 2006, 2008.

Finisher, Deercreek Pineman, Deercreek State Park, Mt. Sterling, OH, September 2005 (1/2 ironman triathlon); September 2003 (3/4 triathlon).

Finisher, Ride Across Indiana (164 mile bicycle race) 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010.

References: Professor Richard Saphire University of Dayton School of Law 300 College Park Dayton, Ohio 45469-2772 (937) 228-2920 Dr. Gloria Flaherty 1293 Pyle Center Wilmington College Wilmington, Ohio 45177 (937) 382-6661 ext. 278 (work) (937) 429-9757 (home)



6

Dr. Howard Tolley Department of Political Science The University of Cincinnati P.O. Box 210375 Crosley Tower Room 1110 Cincinnati, Ohio 45221 (513) 556-3316 (work) (513) 281-2515 (home)



Case: 2:13-cv-00953-MHW-TPK Doc #: 288-2 Filed:...

Documents

Transcript of Case: 2:13-cv-00953-MHW-TPK Doc #: 288-2 Filed:...