The 2014 Survey of State Attorneys General (SAG) collected information on jurisdiction, sources and circumstances of case referrals, and the participation of attorneys general offices in federal or state white-collar crime task forces in 2014. White-collar crime was defined by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) as: "any violation of law committed through non-violent means, involving lies, omissions, deceit, misrepresentation, or violation of a position of trust, by an individual or organization for personal or organizational benefit." SAG sought to analyze how attorneys general offices as an organization in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories respond to white-collar offenses in their jurisdiction. BJS asked respondents to focus on the following criminal and civil offenses: bank fraud, consumer fraud, insurance fraud, medical fraud, securities fraud, tax fraud, environmental offenses, false claims and statements, illegal payments to governmental officials (giving or receiving), unfair trade practices, and workplace-related offenses (e.g., unsafe working conditions). Variables included whether or not offices handled criminal or civil cases in the above categories, estimated number of cases in each category, and what types of criminal or civil sanctions were imposed on white-collar offenders. Researchers also assessed collaboration with partners outside of state attorneys offices, whether cases were referred for federal or local prosecution, and what circumstances lead to referring cases to state regulatory agencies. The extent to which state attorneys offices maintain white-collar crime data was also recorded.

UniCourt provides legal data on law firms that’s been normalized by our AI and enriched with other public data sets to connect real-world law firms to their attorneys and clients, judges they’ve faced and types of litigation they’ve handled across practice areas and state and federal (PACER) courts.

AI Normalized Law Firms

• UniCourt’s AI locates and gathers variations of law firm names and spelling errors contained in court data and combines them with bar data, business data, and judge data to connect real-world law firms to their litigation. • Avoid bad data caused by frequent law firm name changes due to firm mergers, named partners leaving, and firms dissolving, leading to lost business and bad analytics. • UniCourt’s unique normalized IDs for law firms let you quickly search for and download all of the litigation involving the specific firms you’re interested in. • Uncover the associations and relationships between law firms, their lawyers, their clients, judges, and their top practice areas across different jurisdictions.

Using APIs to Dig Deeper

• See a full list of all of the businesses and individuals a law firm has represented as clients in litigation. • Easily vet the bench strength of law firms by looking at the volume and specific types of cases their lawyers have handled. • Drill down into a law firm’s experience to confirm which judges they’ve appeared before in court. • Identify which law firms and lawyers a particular firm has faced as opposing counsel, and the judgments they obtained.

Bulk Access to Law Firm Data

• UniCourt’s Law Firm Data API provides you with structured, cleaned, and organized legal data that you can easily connect to your case management systems, CRM, and other internal applications. • Get bulk access to law firm Secretary of State registration data and the names, emails, phone numbers, and physical addresses for all of a firm’s lawyers. • Use our APIs to create tailored legal marketing campaigns for law firms and their attorneys with the exact practice area expertise and the right geographic coverage you want to target. • Power your case research, business intelligence, and analytics with bulk access to litigation data for all the court cases a firm has handled and set up automated data feeds to find new cases they’re involved in.

Comprehensive dataset of 9,774 Civil law attorneys in United States as of July, 2025. Includes verified contact information (email, phone), geocoded addresses, customer ratings, reviews, business categories, and operational details. Perfect for market research, lead generation, competitive analysis, and business intelligence. Download a complimentary sample to evaluate data quality and completeness.

The annual statistical reports for the Offices of the United States Attorneys contains statistical tables displaying both national and district caseload data, covering the many priorities of the United States Attorneys in both criminal prosecution and civ

This collection grew out of a prototype case tracking and crime mapping application that was developed for the United States Attorney's Office (USAO), Southern District of New York (SDNY). The purpose of creating the application was to move from the traditionally episodic way of handling cases to a comprehensive and strategic method of collecting case information and linking it to specific geographic locations, and collecting information either not handled at all or not handled with sufficient enough detail by SDNY's existing case management system. The result was an end-user application designed to be run largely by SDNY's nontechnical staff. It consisted of two components, a database to capture case tracking information and a mapping component to link case and geographic data. The case tracking data were contained in a Microsoft Access database and the client application contained all of the forms, queries, reports, macros, table links, and code necessary to enter, navigate through, and query the data. The mapping application was developed using Environmental Systems Research Institute's (ESRI) ArcView 3.0a GIS. This collection shows how the user-interface of the database and the mapping component were customized to allow the staff to perform spatial queries without having to be geographic information systems (GIS) experts. Part 1 of this collection contains the Visual Basic script used to customize the user-interface of the Microsoft Access database. Part 2 contains the Avenue script used to customize ArcView to link the data maintained in the server databases, to automate the office's most common queries, and to run simple analyses.

US Attorney District Shapefile downloaded from online

The data contain records of charges filed against defendants whose cases were terminated by United States attorneys in United States district court during fiscal year 2003. The data are charge-level records, and more than one charge may be filed against a single defendant. The data were constructed from the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) Central Charge file. The charge-level data may be linked to defendant-level data (extracted from the EOUSA Central System file) through the CS_SEQ variable, and it should be noted that some defendants may not have any charges other than the lead charge appearing on the defendant-level record. The Central Charge and Central System data contain variables from the original EOUSA files as well as additional analysis variables, or "SAF" variables, that denote subsets of the data. These SAF variables are related to statistics reported in the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics. Variables containing identifying information (e.g., name, Social Security Number) were replaced with blanks, and the day portions of date fields were also sanitized in order to protect the identities of individuals. These data are part of a series designed by the Urban Institute (Washington, DC) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Data and documentation were prepared by the Urban Institute.

In 2023, the region with the most lawyers representing White & Case was Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. This region has represented the most lawyers for White & Case since 2018. The region with the lowest number of lawyers since 2018 for White & Case was in the Asia-Pacific region. In 2023, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa had over 1,000 more lawyers than the Asia-Pacific region. Big in the United States and beyond White & Case is based in New York but has expanded in recent years to take control of 45 offices in 31 countries globally. The law firm is now one of the leading in the world by gross revenue, and accumulated approximately 2.9 billion U.S. dollars in 2021. As well as this global reach, White & Case in the United States were amongst the law firms with one of the most diverse teams of attorneys in 2021. German outreach In June 2000, White & Case completed a merger with the German law firm Fedderson Laule Ewerwahn Scherzberg Finkelnburg Clemm, and since then has become one of the most popular employers amongst legal professionals in Germany, and the most popular American Law firm in the country. As a result of this, they were entered into the “top ten” firms in Germany, the first American company to do so. Clifford Chance was the most successful non-German law firm in the country, and have remained as one of the

Comprehensive dataset of 23,802 Divorce lawyers in United States as of June, 2025. Includes verified contact information (email, phone), geocoded addresses, customer ratings, reviews, business categories, and operational details. Perfect for market research, lead generation, competitive analysis, and business intelligence. Download a complimentary sample to evaluate data quality and completeness.

In 2024, there were approximately 463,600 law firms in the United States. Between 2020 and 2025, the number of law firms grew by approximately 1.8 percent per year on average.

The past several decades have witnessed tremendous growth in the number of professional representatives in the Washington community. Despite a wealth of research that testifies to the importance of these experts in the legislative and executive branches, we know comparatively little regarding sophisticated representation in the judicial context. Is there an identifiable group of specialized representatives in the U.S. Supreme Court? Under the rubric of network theory, I examine the bar of the Court and the patterns of association within it. With survey data from lawyers who participated in Supreme Court litigation during the 1986 term, I develop a predictive model that suggests that the lawyers in the Court are a discrete collection of representatives, strongly anchored in Washington, DC. While many are connected through legal education, geography, and generational affinity, the core of that group--former law clerks to the justices, alumni of the Solicitor General's Office, and the lawyers of the leading law firms in Washington--are the prominent experts within that network.

This statistic depicts the average amount of time spent per week attorneys in the United States spent on billable work other than meeting clients or representing clients in court in 2020. During the survey, ** percent of respondents reported spending ** hours or more per week on non-client facing billable work such as legal research, court filings and administrative/managerial work.

The American Bar Association’s annual Survey on Lawyer Discipline (SOLD) reports complaints and charges regarding lawyer misconduct, the caseload per disciplinary attorney, and each state’s budget for attorney discipline. From these reports, we develop five measures of attorney discipline: 1. COMPLAINTS – the percent of attorneys in the state who receive complaints from the public. 2. CHARGED – the percent of attorneys that are charged with some form of misconduct during the year; 3. CHARGED/ COMPLAINTS – the percent of the attorneys receiving COMPLAINTS that are eventually CHARGED with malpractice; 4. BUDGET (in dollars) – the state’s annual budget for implementing attorney discipline relative to the number of attorneys; and 5. CASELOAD – the number of AD cases per state disciplinary attorney per year.

In our study "ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE, THE QUALITY OF LEGAL SYSTEMS AND ECONOMIC GROWTH WITHIN THE UNITED STATES" we use these measures to examine the quality of legal systems within the United States and the relation between this quality and state economic growth. The panel data set, included here, contains the values of the 5 attorney discipline measures for each state from 2000-2017. We use these data in our study.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics' (BJS) 2007 Census of Public Defender Offices (CPDO) collected data from public defender offices located across 49 states and the District of Columbia. Public defender offices are one of three methods through which states and localities ensure that indigent defendants are granted the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to counsel. (In addition to defender offices, indigent defense services may also be provided by court-assigned private counsel or by a contract system in which private attorneys contractually agree to take on a specified number of indigent defendants or indigent defense cases.) Public defender offices have a salaried staff of full- or part-time attorneys who represent indigent defendants and are employed as direct government employees or through a public, nonprofit organization. Public defenders play an important role in the United States criminal justice system. Data from prior BJS surveys on indigent defense representation indicate that most criminal defendants rely on some form of publicly provided defense counsel, primarily public defenders. Although the United States Supreme Court has mandated that the states provide counsel for indigent persons accused of crime, documentation on the nature and provision of these services has not been readily available. States have devised various systems, rules of organization, and funding mechanisms for indigent defense programs. While the operation and funding of public defender offices varies across states, public defender offices can be generally classified as being part of either a state program or a county-based system. The 22 state public defender programs functioned entirely under the direction of a central administrative office that funded and administered all the public defender offices in the state. For the 28 states with county-based offices, indigent defense services were administered at the county or local jurisdictional level and funded principally by the county or through a combination of county and state funds. The CPDO collected data from both state- and county-based offices. All public defender offices that were principally funded by state or local governments and provided general criminal defense services, conflict services, or capital case representation were within the scope of the study. Federal public defender offices and offices that provided primarily contract or assigned counsel services with private attorneys were excluded from the data collection. In addition, public defender offices that were principally funded by a tribal government, or provided primarily appellate or juvenile services were outside the scope of the project and were also excluded. The CPDO gathered information on public defender office staffing, expenditures, attorney training, standards and guidelines, and caseloads, including the number and type of cases received by the offices. The data collected by the CPDO can be compared to and analyzed against many of the existing national standards for the provision of indigent defense services.

The data contain records of charges filed against defendants whose cases were terminated by United States attorneys in United States district court during fiscal year 2001. The data are charge-level records, and more than one charge may be filed against a single defendant. The data were constructed from the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) Central Charge file. The charge-level data may be linked to defendant-level data (extracted from the EOUSA Central System file) through the CS_SEQ variable, and it should be noted that some defendants may not have any charges other than the lead charge appearing on the defendant-level record. The Central Charge and Central System data contain variables from the original EOUSA files as well as additional analysis variables, or "SAF" variables, that denote subsets of the data. These SAF variables are related to statistics reported in the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics. Variables containing identifying information (e.g., name, Social Security Number) were replaced with blanks, and the day portions of date fields were also sanitized in order to protect the identities of individuals. These data are part of a series designed by the Urban Institute (Washington, DC) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Data and documentation were prepared by the Urban Institute.

The data contain records of charges filed against defendants whose cases were terminated by United States attorneys in United States district court during fiscal year 2004. The data are charge-level records, and more than one charge may be filed against a single defendant. The data were constructed from the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) Central Charge file. The charge-level data may be linked to defendant-level data (extracted from the EOUSA Central System file) through the CS_SEQ variable, and it should be noted that some defendants may not have any charges other than the lead charge appearing on the defendant-level record. The Central Charge and Central System data contain variables from the original EOUSA files as well as additional analysis variables, or "SAF" variables, that denote subsets of the data. These SAF variables are related to statistics reported in the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics. Variables containing identifying information (e.g., name, Social Security Number) were replaced with blanks, and the day portions of date fields were also sanitized in order to protect the identities of individuals. These data are part of a series designed by the Urban Institute (Washington, DC) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Data and documentation were prepared by the Urban Institute.

The data contain records of charges filed against defendants whose cases were filed by United States attorneys in United States district court during fiscal year 2012. The data are charge-level records, and more than one charge may be filed against a single defendant. The data were constructed from the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) Central Charge file. The charge-level data may be linked to defendant-level data (extracted from the EOUSA Central System file) through the CS_SEQ variable, and it should be noted that some defendants may not have any charges other than the lead charge appearing on the defendant-level record. The Central Charge and Central System data contain variables from the original EOUSA files as well as additional analysis variables, or "SAF" variables, that denote subsets of the data. These SAF variables are related to statistics reported in the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics. Variables containing identifying information (e.g., name, Social Security Number) were replaced with blanks, and the day portions of date fields were also sanitized in order to protect the identities of individuals. These data are part of a series designed by the Urban Institute (Washington, DC) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Data and documentation were prepared by the Urban Institute.

The After the JD project is designed to be a longitudinal study, seeking to follow a sample of approximately 10 percent of all the individuals who became lawyers in the year of 2000. This study aims to track the professional lives of more than 5,000 lawyers during their first 10 years after law school. Wave 1 of the After the JD study was launched in May 2002. The sample includes new lawyers from 18 legal markets -- ranging from the 4 largest markets (New York City, District of Columbia, Chicago, and Los Angeles) to 14 other areas consisting of small metropolitan areas to entire states. Some of the topics that the study seeks to examine are: (1) Demographic characteristics; (2) financing of legal education; (3) law school and the transition to practice; (4) practice settings within which lawyers work; (5) distribution of income across the profession; (6) dimensions of satisfaction; (7) mobility and turnover. Respondents were asked to give information concerning their employment status, job responsibilities, professional skills, job support, job satisfaction, and job discrimination. Information was sought about respondents' workplace characteristics, employment details, areas of practice, clientele, billing hours, job history, judicial clerkships, bar admission, alternate career considerations, and job offers. Opinions were collected about what respondents thought the most important factors were in obtaining a job offer and their first job, in determining which sector to begin their professional career, and in choosing an employer. Further questions asked about political participation and participation in social and community organizations. A number of questions were asked about respondents' undergraduate education, their transition to law school and decision to attend law school, their law school education and activities, their educational financing and debt, and their transition to their legal career. Demographic variables include sex, race, age, marital status, household makeup, personal income, household income, spouses' occupation, political party affiliation, parent's nationality, parent's education, parent's occupation when the respondent was in high school, and whether anyone in the respondent's family was a lawyer.

The data contain records of charges filed against defendants whose cases were terminated by United States attorneys in United States district court during fiscal year 2018. The data are charge-level records, and more than one charge may be filed against a single defendant. The data were constructed from the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) Central Charge file. The charge-level data may be linked to defendant-level data (extracted from the EOUSA Central System file) through the CS_SEQ variable, and it should be noted that some defendants may not have any charges other than the lead charge appearing on the defendant-level record. The Central Charge and Central System data contain variables from the original EOUSA files as well as additional analysis variables. Variables containing identifying information (e.g., name, Social Security Number) were either removed, coarsened, or blanked in order to protect the identities of individuals. These data are part of a series designed by Abt and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Data and documentation were prepared by Abt.