Hiring in 2025 economy

IP practice groups are in growth mode, but for how long?

Law firms, and IP groups in particular, seem to be in rapid growth mode. Over the last few years, fueled by strong economic tailwinds, IP filing volumes have increased as has the pressure for IP departments to grow.

Firms are on a hiring spree, as indicated by a recent study released by Leopard Solutions, showing the number of open law firm positions increased by 59% compared to the year before. These figures seem to indicate that firms are responding to stronger client demand, stable economic conditions, or a broader strategic expansion effort. For many IP groups, it’s an encouraging sign that their services remain vital and valued in an evolving economy.

But while such growth can be seen as a healthy indicator of the legal sector’s vitality, it also raises important questions: are law firms scaling headcount too quickly, and what risks come with that? As the stock market fluctuates wildly day by day, many IP departments within law firms are concerned that companies may reduce future IP filings, begging the question, should they add more headcount right now? And if not, how do they manage the influx of work, even if the spike is short lived?

The risks of rapid expansion

Many firms are aggressively hiring lateral attorneys and bringing on new client work. IP operations leaders are challenged by the reality that rarely does the headcount for a firm’s docketing or paralegal group match the influx of new matters. This presents IP groups with a delicate balancing act, should they:

• Hire more personnel to accommodate the increase in work?
• Implement automation technology to make their current team more efficient?
• Leverage a third-party IP services company to complement their in-house team?

Adding headcount is not simply a matter of filling desks with more staff. It involves a substantial long-term investment, hiring, onboarding, salaries, benefits, and training. If not carefully managed, this expansion can backfire.

As Leopard Solutions cautions in their report, the legal job market remains vulnerable to broader economic headwinds. Factors like declining consumer confidence and ongoing global trade disruptions (such as tariffs) could quickly dampen client activity and legal demand. Firms that have aggressively expanded their rosters in anticipation of continued growth may find themselves overstaffed in a downturn, facing difficult decisions about layoffs or restructuring.

So what are the alternatives beyond “hiring your way out of this problem”?

Introduction of automation

Technology and automation tools in the IP market are plentiful, and many provide significant value to IP departments. There are still several challenges in adopting new technologies within a firm to achieve the full benefits they can provide. Prudent firms are exploring automation technology but at the same time avoiding pitfalls which often lead to failed adoption. Best practices should include:

• Choosing technologies that solve a specific task within IP prosecution. Enterprise technologies that aim to cover every aspect of IP operations often end up spreading themselves too thin; few of these large platforms do multiple tasks exceptionally well.
• Minimizing change management. IP groups asking their entire team to revamp the way they’ve been working for decades often fail. Instead, firms should look for technologies that can be rolled out quickly and, if required, only to specific groups which historically embrace technology and change. Firms who can laser in on automating a few key processes which are historically very time-consuming are much more successful than those which try to reorganize the entire IP group.

Third-party resources and outsourcing

Over the last decade, most IP groups have embraced some level of outsourcing, not to replace their in-house staff but to complement their current team and free up capacity. Most firms have turned to IP outsourcing vendors to take on tasks their team would rather not manage (IDSs often jump off the page), to help manage one-time spikes in work such as intakes, or to provide additional capacity if there is an opening and the firm’s remaining staff are drowning in work. Similar to automation, implementation of outsourcing with an unqualified vendor is likely to fail. Not all IP outsourcing vendors are created equal, so some points to consider when engaging a third party:

• What is the vendor’s knowledge of IP operations? Running a call center, eDiscovery team, or back-office financial services department does not translate to being able to successfully manage an IP group. IP outsourcing vendors should live and breathe IP operations.
• IP vendors should be able to provide tangible and actionable best practices on how firms can improve their IP processes. That said, for most tasks attorneys have specific requirements, so the vendor should also be flexible enough to perform tasks the way the law firm wants it done, not using an “assembly line” approach.
• What is their flexibility on committed spending and headcount levels? While IP is growing quickly, firms need to plan for a potential reduction in IP work in the future. Committing to a significant sum of money with an outsourced IP vendor may provide no better results than having an in-house team with more capacity than there is work.
• Look for vendors who can provide “on demand” IP paralegal services on a pay-as-you-go basis. This allows firms to leverage the vendor when their in-house team’s capacity is stretched thin, but not pay for the vendor when work is slow. IP outsourcing vendors who push for required spending are looking out for the best interest of themselves and their shareholders, not their IP law firm customers.

Final thoughts

There’s no doubt that the legal market is showing signs of resilience and opportunity. But history reminds us that unchecked expansion can lead to costly corrections. Law firms should embrace growth, but with caution, clarity, and a long-term vision.

Smart and judicious implementation of automation and outsourcing can help your IP department thrive and quickly respond to peaks and valleys of work. Equally, working with a vendor who tries to do too much or does not have IP expertise is likely to make the problem worse.