The graph illustrates the number of lawyers in the United States from 1990 to 2024. The x-axis represents the years, spanning from 1990 to 2024, while the y-axis indicates the annual number of lawyers. Over this 35-year period, the number of lawyers increases from 755,700 in 1990 to 1,322,649 in 2024. The data ranges from a low of 755,700 lawyers in 1990 to a high of 1,322,649 in 2024. Notable points include steady growth each decade, a slight decline from 1,352,070 in 2019 to 1,327,740 in 2020, and subsequent stabilization in the following years. The data shows a consistent upward trend in the number of lawyers, despite minor fluctuations in recent years. This information is presented in a line graph format, effectively highlighting the long-term growth and yearly variations in the legal profession across the United States.

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.

US Attorney District Shapefile downloaded from online

Early in his tenure at the Law Department, Corporation Counsel Michael A. Cardozo initiated the Public Service Program - a private/public partnership with the City's prominent law firms, where firms either lend their attorneys to the Law Department for a finite period of time or agree to take on City cases in-house. The Program benefits both the City and the law firms. The City receives the assistance of an incredibly well-trained and talented group of attorneys while the attorneys receive the kind of hands-on, in-court litigation experience that is often hard to come by at the best private law firms. While participation in the Program will not lead to offers of permanent employment at the Law Department, it will enable the volunteers to keep their skills fresh while serving the public. Trial Attorney Volunteers: A number of firms lend mid-level litigation associates to the Law Department for a period of four to six months to work full-time in our Tort Division trial units. These attorneys conduct back-to-back civil trials, selecting juries, examining and cross-examining witnesses and presenting opening statements and closing arguments. Law Firm Volunteers: Other firms have chosen to take entire matters in-house, giving their attorneys the chance to participate in court conferences, settlement negotiations, depositions, and, ultimately, trials. Deposition Program: Firms also lend associates to the Law Department either to conduct a series of depositions in an individual case or to spend two to three weeks in our offices conducting back-to-back depositions in a variety of cases.

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.

This dataset provides information on 59 in Missouri, United States as of March, 2025. It includes details such as email addresses (where publicly available), phone numbers (where publicly available), and geocoded addresses. Explore market trends, identify potential business partners, and gain valuable insights into the industry. Download a complimentary sample of 10 records to see what's included.

We curate a large corpus of legal and administrative data. The utility of this data is twofold: (1) to aggregate legal and administrative data sources that demonstrate different norms and legal standards for data filtering; (2) to collect a dataset that can be used in the future for pretraining legal-domain language models, a key direction in access-to-justice initiatives.

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.

This dataset of historical poor law cases was created as part of a project aiming to assess the implications of the introduction of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into legal systems in Japan and the United Kingdom. The project was jointly funded by the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council, part of UKRI, and the Japanese Society and Technology Agency (JST), and involved collaboration between Cambridge University (the Centre for Business Research, Department of Computer Science and Faculty of Law) and Hitotsubashi University, Tokyo (the Graduate Schools of Law and Business Administration). As part of the project, a dataset of historic poor law cases was created to facilitate the analysis of legal texts using natural language processing methods. The dataset contains judgments of cases which have been annotated to facilitate computational analysis. Specifically, they make it possible to see how legal terms have evolved over time in the area of disputes over the law governing settlement by hiring.

A World Economic Forum meeting at Davos 2019 heralded the dawn of 'Society 5.0' in Japan. Its goal: creating a 'human-centred society that balances economic advancement with the resolution of social problems by a system that highly integrates cyberspace and physical space.' Using Artificial Intelligence (AI), robotics and data, 'Society 5.0' proposes to '...enable the provision of only those products and services that are needed to the people that need them at the time they are needed, thereby optimizing the entire social and organizational system.' The Japanese government accepts that realising this vision 'will not be without its difficulties,' but intends 'to face them head-on with the aim of being the first in the world as a country facing challenging issues to present a model future society.' The UK government is similarly committed to investing in AI and likewise views the AI as central to engineering a more profitable economy and prosperous society.

This vision is, however, starting to crystallise in the rhetoric of LegalTech developers who have the data-intensive-and thus target-rich-environment of law in their sights. Buoyed by investment and claims of superior decision-making capabilities over human lawyers and judges, LegalTech is now being deputised to usher in a new era of 'smart' law built on AI and Big Data. While there are a number of bold claims made about the capabilities of these technologies, comparatively little attention has been directed to more fundamental questions about how we might assess the feasibility of using them to replicate core aspects of legal process, and ensuring the public has a meaningful say in the development and implementation.

This innovative and timely research project intends to approach these questions from a number of vectors. At a theoretical level, we consider the likely consequences of this step using a Horizon Scanning methodology developed in collaboration with our Japanese partners and an innovative systemic-evolutionary model of law. Many aspects of legal reasoning have algorithmic features which could lend themselves to automation. However, an evolutionary perspective also points to features of legal reasoning which are inconsistent with ML: including the reflexivity of legal knowledge and the incompleteness of legal rules at the point where they encounter the 'chaotic' and unstructured data generated by other social sub-systems. We will test our theory by developing a hierarchical model (or ontology), derived from our legal expertise and public available datasets, for classifying employment relationships under UK law. This will let us probe the extent to which legal reasoning can be modelled using less computational-intensive methods such as Markov Models and Monte Carlo Trees.

Building upon these theoretical innovations, we will then turn our attention from modelling a legal domain using historical data to exploring whether the outcome of legal cases can be reliably predicted using various technique for optimising datasets. For this we will use a data set comprised of 24,179 cases from the High Court of England and Wales. This will allow us to harness Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques such as named entity recognition (to identify relevant parties) and sentiment analysis (to analyse opinions and determine the disposition of a party) in addition to identifying the main legal and factual points of the dispute, remedies, costs, and trial durations. By trailing various predictive heuristics and ML techniques against this dataset we hope to develop a more granular understanding as to the feasibility of predicting dispute outcomes and insight to what factors are relevant for legal decision-making. This will allow us to then undertake a comparative analysis with the results of existing studies and shed light on the legal contexts and questions where AI can and cannot be used to produce accurate and repeatable results.

This dataset provides information on 196 in New York, United States as of March, 2025. It includes details such as email addresses (where publicly available), phone numbers (where publicly available), and geocoded addresses. Explore market trends, identify potential business partners, and gain valuable insights into the industry. Download a complimentary sample of 10 records to see what's included.

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

In 2023, there were approximately 450,000 law firms in the United States. Between 2018 and 2023, the number of law firms grew by approximately 0.7 percent per year on average.

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

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 2005. 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.

United States Avg Weekly Earnings: PB: Office of Lawyer data was reported at 1,546.200 USD in May 2018. This records a decrease from the previous number of 1,641.750 USD for Apr 2018. United States Avg Weekly Earnings: PB: Office of Lawyer data is updated monthly, averaging 1,341.750 USD from Mar 2006 (Median) to May 2018, with 147 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 1,641.750 USD in Apr 2018 and a record low of 1,102.520 USD in Aug 2006. United States Avg Weekly Earnings: PB: Office of Lawyer data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Bureau of Labor Statistics. The data is categorized under Global Database’s USA – Table US.G032: Current Employment Statistics Survey: Average Weekly and Hourly Earnings.

This dataset provides information on 195,615 in United States as of March, 2025. It includes details such as email addresses (where publicly available), phone numbers (where publicly available), and geocoded addresses. Explore market trends, identify potential business partners, and gain valuable insights into the industry. Download a complimentary sample of 10 records to see what's included.

United States AHE: PW: PB: Offices of Lawyers data was reported at 50.090 USD in Jan 2025. This records a decrease from the previous number of 50.990 USD for Dec 2024. United States AHE: PW: PB: Offices of Lawyers data is updated monthly, averaging 27.270 USD from Jan 1990 (Median) to Jan 2025, with 421 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 50.990 USD in Dec 2024 and a record low of 15.010 USD in Jan 1990. United States AHE: PW: PB: Offices of Lawyers data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United States – Table US.G070: Current Employment Statistics Survey: Average Hourly Earnings: Production Workers.

This replication archive contains all data and code to replicate the results in "A Common-Space Scaling of the American Judiciary and Legal Profession" by Maya Sen and Adam Bonica. Abstract: We extend the scaling methodology previously used in Bonica (2014) to jointly scale the American federal judiciary and legal profession in a common-space with other political actors. The end result is the first data set of consistently measured ideological scores across all tiers of the federal judiciary and the legal profession, including 840 federal judges and 380,307 attorneys. To illustrate these measures, we present two examples involving the U.S. Supreme Court. These data open up significant areas of scholarly inquiry.

How important are lawyers in the decision making of the U.S. Supreme Court? Although legal expertise has long been assumed to benefit certain litigants, the frequency with which lawyers appear before the Court has not been directly measured. In this article, I argue that, quite apart from the status of different litigants, lawyers can be viewed as repeat players who affect judicial outcomes. Using data from the U.S. Supreme Court Judicial Data Base with data from the United States Reports, I propose and test a theory in which the informational needs of the Court are better met by more credible litigators. Thus, for example, a more experienced lawyer significantly raises the probability of a party's success. The findings testify to the efficacy of experienced counsel, irrespective of the parties they represent.

This dataset provides information on 36 in Massachusetts, United States as of March, 2025. It includes details such as email addresses (where publicly available), phone numbers (where publicly available), and geocoded addresses. Explore market trends, identify potential business partners, and gain valuable insights into the industry. Download a complimentary sample of 10 records to see what's included.