May 20, 2008

Partner Cost And Client Profitability, (Part IV)

12:00 am

 This is the fourth in a series on and client profitability written by Ron Paquette, consultant with Redwood , now part of .  The first article, titled Client Profitability: What Is The Cost Of Partner Time?, was an introduction to the concept of allocating partner cost in calculating client profitability.  The second article, titled Partner Cost And Client Profitability, (Part II), is focused on pitfalls of some firms' methodology in allocating costs to partners.  The third article, titled  Partner Cost And Client Profitability, (Part III) , is focused on basing a partner's direct cost on a "minimum margin percentage".  This article is focused on a related methodology:  using a "minimum margin dollar amount" to allocate partner direct cost.

Thus far, we have evaluated a number of methods of allocating partner direct costs (compensation) to a client. Since firms have differing long and short term goals, levels of , and thought processes about client profitability, we have concluded that there is not one perfect solution for this question, but instead a handful of recommended options.
Minimum Margin $ (or fixed margin $ for firms with closed compensation):
Very similar to the Minimum Margin %, this methodology differs only in that the threshold is set as a dollar value instead of a % of standard rate. Some firms we interviewed think about partner profitability in dollars, stating as an example that each partner should have an annual margin (standard revenue less direct costs) of $100M on their bRate MinimumMargin Minimumillable time (hourly margin is an option as well).  
In the example, again we have the same partners but now each is given a minimum annual margin of $100M (or $56 per hour based on 1800 std hours). Since the Rainmaker and the Dept. Manager have fully loaded much less than this amount, they are set to the minimum while the Jr. Partner remains at his full compensation level. Notice that with this methodology, while both the Rainmaker and the Dept. Manager are at the minimum threshold, they have different Direct Margin %. While the dollar margin is the same, the higher rate timekeeper has a lower margin %, thus encouraging a billing attorney to use the more junior (or lower cost lawyers) on their matters.
Role
Comp
Std
Rate
Minimum
Yearly
Margin
Minimum
Hourly
Margin*
Cost
Rate*
Direct Margin
Rainmaker
$1MM
$250
$100M
$56
($194)
22%
Dept.
Manager
$500M
$200
$100M
$56
($144)
28%
Jr. Partner
$150M
$150
$100M
$56
($83)
44%
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  *Assumes 1800 standard billable hours expectation
 Advantages of the methodology:
  • It ensures that every partner has a positive margin associated with his/her hours when valued at standard rate. While one may purposely choose to lose money on specific matters through discounting, there should be margin on every hour of time when valued at published rate.
  • It is simple. Firm leaders need only to decide on one variable that can be based on firm and for other titles (e.g. income partners or senior associates).
  • It is based on the partner’s published rate. While total compensation can rise and fall with firm profits, this relative cost will not fluctuate and this method is in line with thinking about compensation for a partner’s work effort.
  • The most highly compensated partners will be forced to the minimum margin ensuring they appear less profitable than junior partners, therefore supporting a leverage model.
  • Multiple partners hitting the minimum margin level will have different margin % if they have different standard rates, further promoting a positive leverage model.
We have to address the weaknesses of this approach as well:
  •  A firm will need to decide on the minimum margin. While strong arguments can be made for a certain threshold, there may still be dissenters. 
  • Each partner who is affected by the minimum threshold will have the same margin (in dollars), leaving discounting as the only differentiator of profit on

Like the Minimum Margin %, the strengths of this methodology prevail over the weaknesses and many firms have found this option easy to implement and easy to gain support for (due to minimal arbitrary decisions). In the final two entries, we will discuss some variations on the two minimum margin methodologies (% and $) and discuss a set of criteria to help a firm determine the pros and cons of each.

 

Related posts

Permalink Print Add Comment

Filed under Compensation by Ron Paquette

Leave a Comment

Subscribe without commenting

Page 1 of 0