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.

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.

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.

Comprehensive dataset of 2,826 Medical 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.

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.

APISCRAPY offers comprehensive California legal data, including court data, litigation records, attorney information, and legal datasets for other states such as Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, and more. Our AI-driven web scraping tool simplifies data extraction and integration, transforming complex legal data into ready-to-use APIs.

With APISCRAPY, you gain access to precise state-based legal data for lawyers, law data, and USA legal data, enabling seamless workflows and actionable insights. Our solution guarantees 50% cost savings compared to traditional methods, with flexible pricing tailored to your needs.

Key Benefits:

Extract and classify court data and litigation records for multiple states. Verified and accurate datasets for attorneys and legal professionals. Pre-built automation and real-time data delivery. Seamless integration with databases and BI tools, no coding required. Access free data samples to evaluate the quality of our services.

Whether you're focused on compliance, market research, or business intelligence, APISCRAPY provides reliable legal data solutions across the USA, ensuring accuracy, efficiency, and affordability. Contact us today for your California legal data and beyond!

Graph and download economic data for Total Revenue for Offices of Lawyers, All Establishments, Employer Firms (REVEF54111ALLEST) from 1998 to 2022 about legal, employer firms, accounting, revenue, establishments, services, and USA.

Graph and download economic data for Gross Domestic Product: Legal Services (5411) in the United States (USLEGALNGSP) from 1997 to 2023 about legal, science, professional, GSP, private industries, business, services, private, industry, GDP, and USA.

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 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. We develop five measures of attorney discipline which are: 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 5. CASELOAD – the number of AD cases per state disciplinary attorney per year

In our study entitled 'Attorney Discipline, the Quality of Legal Systems and Economic Growth within the United States' we examine the relation between attorney discipline and state economic growth. Here, we include the panel dataset of the five attorney discipline measures used in that study 'Attorney Discipline Data 2000-2017'.

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.

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 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.

Comprehensive dataset of 8 Lawyers associations in Washington, 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.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed. This study utilized data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics on federal criminal case processing to study jurisdictional variations in prosecutorial decision-making outcomes. It linked information across multiple federal agencies in order to track individual offenders across the various stages of the federal justice system. Specifically, it combined arrest information from the United States Marshall's Service with charging information from the Executive and Administrative Offices of the United States Attorney and with sentencing information from the United States Sentencing Commission. These individual data were subsequently augmented with additional information on federal courts to examine contextual variations in charging decisions across federal jurisdictions. There are three data files. Dataset 1 (Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) and United States Marshals Service (USMS) Data) contains 88 variables and 284,869 cases. Dataset 2 (Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) and United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) Data) contains 717 variables and 256,598 cases. Dataset 3 (United States District Court Characteristics Data) contains 6 variables and 89 cases. Only Dataset 3 is being released as part of the available study materials. Datasets 1 and 2 can be re-created using the syntax files which are included in the study materials.

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 Initiation results data presented here reflects all of the arrests that came through the door of the State's Attorneys Office (SAO). Included in this data set are the defendant counts by gender and initiation, their associated offense type, and year. An initiation is how an arrest turns into a “case” in the courts. Most cases are initiated through a process known as felony review, in which SAO attorneys make a decision whether or not to prosecute. Cases may also be indicted by a grand jury or, in narcotics cases, filed directly by law enforcement (labeled "BOND SET (Narcotics)" in this data). Included in this data set are the defendant counts by initiation and year. This data includes felony cases handled by the Criminal, Narcotics, and Special Prosecution Bureaus. It does not include information about cases processed through the Juvenile Justice and Civil Actions Bureaus.

United States - Total Revenue for Offices of Lawyers, All Establishments, Employer Firms was 343016.00000 Mil. of $ in January of 2022, according to the United States Federal Reserve. Historically, United States - Total Revenue for Offices of Lawyers, All Establishments, Employer Firms reached a record high of 343016.00000 in January of 2022 and a record low of 138894.00000 in January of 1998. Trading Economics provides the current actual value, an historical data chart and related indicators for United States - Total Revenue for Offices of Lawyers, All Establishments, Employer Firms - last updated from the United States Federal Reserve on July of 2025.

Graph and download economic data for Employed full time: Wage and salary workers: Lawyers occupations: 16 years and over (LEU0254483400A) from 2000 to 2024 about legal, occupation, full-time, salaries, workers, 16 years +, wages, employment, and USA.