UPDATED

Fish & Richardson’s Revenue and Profits Up After ‘Really Strong Year’

, The Am Law Daily

   | 5 Comments

A significant increase in contingency fee income helped Fish & Richardson continue its growth in 2016, with the firm posting solid gains in both revenue and profit.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

  • B Massarsky

    the gross revenue numbers for 2014 and 2015 are wrong, the firm did not earn over $800 million in those years. The math could not be correct if it did, plus the story references a 2009 peak of $417 million. Please fix.

  • BWM

    the gross revenue numbers for 2014 and 2015 are wrong, the firm did not earn over $800 million in those years. The math could not be correct if it did, plus the story references a 2009 peak of $417 million. Please fix.

  • B Massarsky

    the gross revenue numbers for 2014 and 2015 are wrong, the firm did not earn over $800 million in those years. The math could not be correct if it did, plus the story references a 2009 peak of $417 million. Please fix.

  • BWM

    the gross revenue numbers for 2014 and 2015 are wrong, the firm did not earn over $800 million in those years. The math could not be correct if it did, plus the story references a 2009 peak of $417 million. Please fix.

  • BWM

    the gross revenue numbers for 2014 and 2015 are wrong, the firm did not earn over $800 million in those years. The math could not be correct if it did, plus the story references a 2009 peak of $417 million. Please fix.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202779085529

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.