Since 2000, law firm PEPP (profits per equity partner) have increased on average 11% for Amlaw 100 firms and 8% for Amlaw 200 firms.  Some observers fear that, like other markets that have sustained growth periods at or near double digits in the past 10 years, the law firm partner profit "bubble" may soon burst as well.

Looking at Amlaw 200 data, PEPP increased by 2% in 2001.  In 2002, the increase was 7%.  2003 saw an increase of 11%, 8% in 2004 and 2005, and 10% in 2006.

This increase doesn't only apply to Amlaw 200 firms.  Looking at the differences from 2005 and 2006 for the top respondent firms in the Law Firm Economic Survey  by Juris Inc. and LexisNexis, respectively (the only two years available), firm PEPP increased 11%.  It is likely that most firms in the mid-market and small market increased incomes by respectable if not similar percentages over the same period.

What can you do to prepare for a stunt in the growth (or decline) of PEPP?  Bruce MacEwen posted an article May 5th  on his blog Adam Smith Esq., titled A "Bubble" in PPP? that looks at some short term ideas to help "mitigate the downward trend" and predicts a change in the las firm business model over the long term:

Short term ideas:

• Redeploy lawyers in troubled practice areas to healthier ones;
• Use the opportunity of "shared pain" with your key clients to get closer to them;
• Adroitly stand by while the normal waves of attrition take their toll;
• Build or at least safeguard capacity in selected practice areas that you anticipate will emerge strongly from the downturn;
• And always, always, keep a sharp eye on costs–although, truth be told, you don't have much material flexibility here. You're not moving your offices to Brooklyn and you're not paying less than market for partners and associates.

Long term predictions:

• the billable hour, lamented by many but eliminated by few, will eventually replaced with a more "value-based" model, though MacEwen stresses that he is not "holding [his] breath" on this;
• the traditional associate/partner model changes to include more non-equity partners and more contract attorneys;
• at least fundamentally, "the core processes by which law firms manage cases and deals must and will change" (ie, more project management, more team philosophy centered around practice groups to become more efficient).

Ultimately, MacEwen believes that due to increased demand (at least for Amlaw 100 firms), finding work won't be the problem.  However, he sees the traditional model as being unsustainable based on the limits placed on things such as productivity (>2,400 hours?), rates (>$1,000 per hour?)and realization (>100%?).  Because of this, if PEPP does suffer a downturn for an extended period of time, the long predicted changes to law firm dynamics may happen.

If this occurs in large law firms, it is incumbent on smaller firms to adapt quickly.  The predictions above are all point towards efficiency that allow firm profits to increase through efficiency rather than increased rates and worked hours.  Much has bee written about the "unmanageability of law firms".  Despite this, firms have continued to make exceptional profits - due in no small part to their enviable margins.  With good management, law firms can see profits that far exceed anything that firms receive currently.   And if partner profits start decreasing, your firm will be in crisis -  just as it is not a good idea to go to the grocery store on an empty stomach, it isn't a good time to contemplate an overhaul in processes during a crisis.

Much of the allure of smaller firms is quality service at a lower price.  Some large firm partners charge rates in excess of $1,000 per hour.  If large firms realize they can offer similar services at lower prices and still increase profits, smaller firms can be squeezed out of the marketplace.

Think Walmart.  As Walmart entered the scene, small businesses were unable to compete based on their lack of purchase power.  Walmart could offer more product selection at a lower price.  Home Depot and Lowes did the same to small hardware stores.  The small shops that survived did so by using their secret weapon - customer service and personal engagement.  Still, you won't find many of these shops who don't struggle on a monthly basis and have to watch as their clients often come to them for advice, then go to Home Depot to buy the big-ticket items.

For small and mid-size firms to compete in this changed environment, they will have to embrace workflow efficiencies that meet or exceed that of the larger firms - and use their "secret weapons" of personal engagement with clients and responsiveness.  However, without the fundamentals of an efficient business in place, your firm will suffer under the weight of your processes.  

There will always be individual clients available, but more dependable sources of income often come from business clients and their leaders.  These clients are already demanding more cost certainty.  If larger firms are able to provide this value to business clients first at a price that isn't so different than yours, your firm may be in trouble.

The time to act is now.

Related posts

• Survey Targets Business Development In Law Firms
• Reflections on the 2007 ALM Billing Rates & Practices Survey
• Law Firms with Non-Lawyer Management Achieve Higher Per-Partner Incomes
• Law Firm Survey Shows Link between Leverage and Partner Income
• Law Firm Business Model: Margin

This is the second in a series on partner compensation and client profitability written by Ron Paquette, consultant with Redwood Analytics, now part of LexisNexis.  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.  This article is focused on pitfalls of some firms' methodology in allocating costs to partners.

Some firms have chosen to exclude costs all together from billable hours worked by partners.  Generally it has been requested for one of two reasons: the firm would like to keep actual partner compensation out of the profitability model (a closed compensation system), or the firm is thinking about a P&L model where partner compensation is simply a distribution of firm profits.  While this methodology does accomplish those goals, from a client profitability perspective, it introduces its own set of issues.   

What results is a model where client profitability is maximized by only using partners to perform the billable time.  In the example below, there is a timekeeper with a 66% profit margin and two partners, both with 100% margins.  Any hour that the Associate performs for a client will in essence drag down that client’s profitability and a matter manager might be tempted to use a Partner where an Associate would suffice in an effort to ‘game’ his clients profitability.  This is contrary to the proper use of leverage and economic theory which would have the partners working on tasks for which lower level timekeepers are not qualified such as originations and the management of matters and attorneys.  For this reason alone, there needs to be some cost associated with each billable hour of a Partner’s time, if not for any other purpose than to represent the opportunity cost of them not performing these other tasks.  Besides, every firm that we have encountered expects their partners to perform a certain quantity of billable hours for their clients which would imply that some of their compensation should in fact be allocated to the client.

Another methodology that has been requested in an effort to support a closed compensation is what we call a fixed (or capped) partner cost.  In this scenario, every partner is given the same direct costs.  Aside from the privacy of actual compensation, firms make their case by stating that above a certain point, all partner compensation is for contributions besides the billable hour.   However, since billable rates vary significantly even in the upper echelons of partners, it is hard to justify those hours having the same cost rate.  Regardless, like the methodologies we have already examined, this too creates some unfortunate outcomes. 

The biggest concern with this methodology is the reversed leverage that it creates (similar to having no costs at all).  In the example illustrated below, we see a firm that has chosen $270,000 as the partner direct costs.  Any partner whose compensation exceeds this threshold has their compensation limited and as a result, all have a $150 cost rate for their time.  The result is that the highest rate timekeepers have the highest profit margin, 40% in the case of the Rainmaker, while those with lower compensation, like the Jr. Partner, have minimal (or zero) profit margin for their work.  Certainly, the cost to the firm for these 3 timekeepers is not the same.

The alternate version (and preferable to the former) is to use the dollar amount as a limit to partner compensation and not a flat amount for every partner.  In the example below, we see the Jr. Partner whose actual compensation is below the $270,000 mark.  In the fixed methodology his profit margin is 0% but if it were capped, his direct costs would be his actual compensation and therefore would have a more favorable profit margin of 44%. This still does not relieve the cost similarity between the Dept. Manager and the Rainmaker but it is a slight improvement over having all partners at one cost rate.  Of course this methodology does not meet the requirements of a closed compensation system (unless the firm is primarily interested in the privacy of Sr. Partner compensation).

The next installment will focus on better ways to calculate partner cost in measuring client profitability.

Related posts

• Partner Cost And Client Profitability, (Part III)
• Client Profitability: What Is The Cost Of Partner Time?
• Why Law Partners Hoard Work?
• What Corporate Clients Read Into Law Firm Bills
• Measuring Your Law Firm's Billing Cycle

In the April, 2008 issue of CFO magazine, the cover story reads:  "Goodbye GAAP:  It's Time To Prepare For the Arrival Of International Accounting Standards".  These international standards, called the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), are being sought to replace generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), an evolving set of accounting standards in the US since the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was established in the 1930's.

What started as a reconciliation of the two is now seen as "more of a takeover than a merger of equals - many who favor a single global standard hope to wipe out GAAP altogether".

Grant Thornton has a paper outlining the major differences between GAAP and IFRS that can be viewed by clicking here.  James Turley, Chairman and CEO of Ernst & Young, also makes an argument for the move to IFRS that was published by the Wall Street Journal in November of last year.

How does this affect firms who are currently not even using GAAP?  Many small and mid-size firms have historically kept their books on a cash basis.  In the  2007 Law Firm Economic Survey by LexisNexis, the failings of cash basis accounting were exposed - in particular, the lack of reporting on work in process gives firms only half of their financial picture.  And, based on the respondents in the 2007 survey, there is no correlation between per partner income and cash basis accounting.  The fallacy of having to report to the IRS on an accrual basis if you reported internally in this manner were reiterated.

Many of the requirements of GAAP and IFRS apply only to publicly traded companies.  This lack of mandate is tempting to law firms, who are not forced to change their accounting methodology.  However, one of the main management priorities respondents in the 2007 survey reported was better benchmarking.  What are other firms doing?  How do we compare? 

Using tools such as Lexis® Insight helps.  But these tools are meant to be starting points for analysis.  As Stephen Collins noted in the Introduction of the 2007 Survey:

"Without applying the accrual concept, law firms can't reliably forecast cash flows or anticipate funding needs.  The unrealized value of unbilled fees and accounts receivable are clouded.  In fact, cash basis accounting may contribute to the industry-wide experience of very slow cash flow cycle times.  Key financial metrics such as realization cannot be accurately measured by matching the appropriate revenue to the related adjustments.  As a result, many firms are losing significant amounts of fee revenue to adjustments and they don't even know it it."

 For nearly 80 years, the answer was generally accepted accounting principles.  It appears that due to the expansion of free trade agreements and globalization in general, there may be a new standard.  For firms who want to improve profitability and are looking to move from cash basis accounting to accrual to help measure performance, take heed.

Related posts

• The Case Against Income Partners
• Survey Targets Business Development In Law Firms
• For Long Term Increases To Income, Partners Must Delegate Work
• Reflections on the 2007 ALM Billing Rates & Practices Survey
• Measuring Your Law Firm's Billing Cycle

In an article for the upcoming issue of the National Law Journal  (NLJ) posted yesterday on their site, law firms are not taking their own advice when it comes to arbitration clauses in employment disputes.

Is this a case of what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander?  Why would arbitration be a good idea for other businesses but not good for law firms?  The answer brings into question the utility of arbitration. 

The arguments for arbitration come from those who have been burned in litigation.  Litigation can have you sitting in front of a jury that likely has no experience in the subject matter at hand and may in fact have motives other than the subject matter at hand to deliver a large award to a plaintiff.   Arbitrators, on the other hand, are picked from within the industry from which the dispute arises and ostensibly provide a more fair, though equally binding, resolution at less cost than litigation.  Where litigation can hinge on perception, arbitration decisions are meant to be grounded in experience-laden fact.

According to the NLJ story, however, only 10% of 200 law firm respondents to a 2003 survey had "mandatory arbitration in place".  I assume this means that equity partners were bound by it through the partner agreement and that other employees were bound by it as a condition of employment, though it isn't specified in the article.  One reason cited is that arbitration clauses may have a detrimental effect on the workplace.  Said a partner with DLA Piper, "Your attorneys can perceive that you are materially changing their position vis-a-vis the firm and attempting to circumscribe the rights they might otherwise have."

I believe that statement holds true to any situation where arbitration exists, not just when applicable to law firms.  Any other reason to not have them?  The article paraphrased a partner in the New York office of Greenberg Traurig, writing "Arbitration [] no longer offers the benefits of a speedier, cheaper resolution, as proceedings have become bogged down in discovery and quasi-motion work that mirrors litigation."

If that is truly the case, then arbitration has a gloomy future indeed, and not just with law firms.  I brought up the article to an attorney I know who defends clients in arbitration and he told me some of his concerns with it:

• Arbitration has become very inefficient, with no control over evidence admission (ie, evidence can come in at any time);
• The arbitrators do not have the same fear of appeal that judges do and thus are unafraid to ignore precedent;
• The quality of arbitrators has declined.

This indicates some serious problems with the arbitation system for dispute resolution.  As the attorney I spoke with said, "Our clients used arbitration to get away from runaway juries.  Now they are going back to the courts to get away from runaway arbitrators".

We have begun taking submissions for the 2008 Law Firm Economic Survey.  If your firm is interested in participating, please contact Brian by clicking here.

Related posts

• The Case Against Income Partners
• Midsized Firms Have Available Capacity and a Pricing Advantage
• Information-Driven Business Development For Law Firms
• Generation X
• What to do When Clients Don't Pay?

 Last Friday I wrote about the dangers of sending sensitive emails to clients unencrypted.  Please read the comments Tom Mighell wrote - he made some very good points.

Today I read that sensitive settlement negotiations were discovered after a lawyer mistakenly emailed sensitive documents to a New York Times reporter rather than co-counsel. 

What would have happened had the lawyer sent this email encrypted?  It wouldn't have sent at all, since the encryption software wouldn't have recognized the recipient as having an encrypted key and would have thrown a warning to the sender.  The sender would then know to place the correct recipient in the email.

Of course, there is a concern that you could send an encrypted email to the wrong party who is also set up to decrypt emails from you.  This is a good reason to not set up encryption with everyone but rather just with those you expect to share privileged sensitive information.

The way around sending email to the wrong person, assuming you use Microsoft Outlook, is to turn off the feature "suggest names while completing to, cc,  and bcc fields" in the advanced options of email options (under tools>>options). 

Morepartnerincome.com is sponsored by Juris®.  For information about Juris products and services for increasing law firm performance and partner income contact Juris National Sales Center:

 877/377-3740, e-mail info@juris.com or go to www.Juris.com.

Related posts

• No related posts.

The days of unencrypted email communications being protected under the attorney/client privilege may be numbered.  The latest evidence of this comes from New York, where Judge Charles W. Ramos ruled last fall that emails from a doctor to his lawyer sent via a hospital's business email server weren't privileged after they were discovered by the hospital (source:  Wall Street Journal Law Blog).

Judge Ramos rejected the privilege largely because, he found, the plaintiff didn’t have any real expectation that the messages were private. The hospital had a policy of prohibiting email for personal purposes, and that policy was disclosed to employees.

This is another shot across the bow to law firms.  When courts have waived the privilege in situations like the above, it has been due to a lack of expectation of privacy.  There have been similar cases in the past (Kaufman v. SunGard Invest. Sys., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28149 (D.N.J. 2006)),  In the bankruptcy proceeding In re Asia Global Crossing, Ltd., 324 B.R. 503 (Bankr. D.N.Y. 2005), the Southern District of New York held that email between an attorney and client left on the corporate email system waived the privilege.  The court held found that the following four factors should be taken into consideration in that analysis:

(1) does the corporation maintain a policy banning personal or other objectionable use,

(2) does the company monitor the use of the employee's computer or e-mail,

(3) do third parties have a right of access to the computer or emails, and

(4) did the corporation notify the employee, or was the employee aware, of the use and monitoring policies?

What if the client was communicating to the attorney with encrypted email?  Does that offer the client an “expectation of privacy?” 

In order for a client to invoke the protections of the attorney client privilege, four elements are required:

1. the client is seeking legal advice;
2. from a professional in his capacity as an attorney;
3. the communication relates to the legal advice; and 
4. the confidential communication is between the client and the attorney.

 In Nat'l Econ. Research Assocs. v. Evans, 21 Mass. L. Rep. 337 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2006), the Massachusetts Superior Court held that when the employer did not specify in its manual that it could monitor email and the employee took “reasonable” steps to protect the emails (the court considered deleting the emails and running a disk de-fragmentation program sufficient), then the privilege isn’t waived.    Ernest Sasso, on his firm site, wrote a comprehensive article regarding email and client confidentiality which supports the argument that encrypted email would make arguments for waiver of privilege moot.  To my knowledge, the issue of encrypted mail being challenged to waive privilege has still not been litigated (please correct me if I am wrong).
 

If you are communicating via email to clients regarding your case, stop it now.  Or, take evasive action.  Use encryption in all communications with clients expected to contain privileged information.  In my opinion, you have a stronger argument for an expectation of privacy even with minimal encryption (read: ease of use and implementation) than with none at all.  Plus, the cost of software (for the client end) can be billed to the client as an up-front expense if the client desires to communicate via email.

The above is just a cursory look at the law to alert you to the potential danger of communicating with clients via unencrypted email.  Logon to Lexis.com to research the above in more detail.  And to avoid being the next victim, encrypt now. 

Some encryption providers:

• http://www.pgp.com/
• http://www.entrust.com/email-encryption/
• http://www.shyfile.net/
• http://www.centurionsoft.com/
• http://www.tumbleweed.com/solutions/outbound_email.html

The above isn’t even close to comprehensive.  Have your IT staff research solutions that will work with your firm.

Morepartnerincome.com is sponsored by Juris®.  For information about Juris products and services for increasing law firm performance and partner income contact Juris National Sales Center:

 877/377-3740, e-mail info@juris.com or go to www.Juris.com.

Related posts

• No related posts.

It seems every year there are those who get in front of the press and claim that there is a looming recession that is about to envelop the country and if there is no action, the depths of it will surpass our worst fears.

• Housing starts are down 24% from a year ago. The median sales price of existing single-family homes has been falling all year, according to the National Association of Realtors. A person's home is the largest single asset and the source of a sense of prosperity for most Americans.
• The value of the dollar is near an all-time low [ ]. The dollar is worth the same as the Canadian Loonie currency.
• The price of oil spiked at $100 per barrel on January 2 and has settled at an exorbitant $92 per barrel.
• The US trade deficit widened sharply by 9.3% in November to a larger-than-expected $63.1 billion. The trade deficit has widened to its highest level in more than a year.
• The "credit crunch" means that investment capital is difficult to obtain. Banks and investors become wary of lending funds to corporations, thereby driving up the price of debt products for borrowers. Citigroup, the nation's biggest bank, announced a stunning $10 billion fourth-quarter loss. The Kuwait Investment Authority — a foreign country — is expected to bail out Merrill Lynch with a $4 billion investment.
• The cost of the war in Iraq over the past five years is now approaching a cumulative $500 billion, or about $100 billion per year on average.

Related posts

• Managing Partner Forum Attendees: Business Development Most Effective Way To Improve Profitability
• Who Your Clients Are Can Sell Others on Your Law Firm
• Top 25% of Law Firms Earn Margins Above 40%
• Not Polite Conversation but Law Firms Should Follow Apple's Strategy
• New Blog Mentors Law Firm Associates

Management is achieving objectives through others. It's a continuing process of receiving input, processing input, taking action, receiving feedback, and repeating the process. It requires KASH in a real-time environment. It is a cycle of planning, organizing, actuating and controlling.

Prior to 1828, the path to becoming an attorney required not only to obtain a degree, but to serve several years as an apprentice before being able to practice law. President Andrew Jackson changed these requirements to break up the elitist methods of choosing attorneys (only attorneys could choose who the apprentice would be, much like real estate appraisers of today). By the end of the 1800's, apprenticeship programs for attorneys were well in decline and after the introduction of the American Bar Association in 1878, a more standardized formal process to becoming an attorney was introduced (Source: Bar Examination: Further Readings). An unintended consequence of this action was to lessen the importance of mentorship to young attorneys-in-waiting.

Today, the only qualifications (not to lessen their importance) to becoming a lawyer is a good dose of book smarts, focus and an ability to not crack under stress. Law school does much to help you think like a lawyer, but does nothing to help you act like a lawyer. Mentorship helps associates to learn from seasoned attorneys how to act as well as how to best service clients.

Management ensures that the value of mentoring is set as habit, achieving professional objectives not only for the individual, but for the firm. Unfortunately for some firms, management is treated much like strategic plans: either you spend time developing a plan but don't stick to it or you don't do it at all.

Good management starts by receiving input. Actively solicit feedback from your associates. Karen Asner wrote an article for Law.Com (Law Firm Partners Find Out What Associates Really Think of Them) regarding establishing an "upward review process":

Upward reviews give associates the opportunity to evaluate and provide input on the management and leadership performance of partners with whom they regularly work on deals, cases, committees or pro bono matters.

Law firms aiming to create an outstanding working environment for their associates and attract prospective recruits should seriously consider implementing an upward review process.

It's a good bet that associates, if put in a non-threatening environment to speak frankly, would have some pointed views on their plight. Some may be warranted; some may not, but if you want to consistently increase partner income, knowing what associates are thinking can be invaluable, especially if you are considering them as future partners. You don't want to find out after the attorney leaves how disaffected he/she was towards the shareholders. Plus, in an ideal environment, the associates are bearing the brunt of most of the work - you want to make sure they are well incented to be proper representatives of the firm, inside and outside of the office.

Implementing an upward review process is only the start: next, you have to process the input. The management committee or equivalent must review the results and develop a plan of action that will address concerns and further the firm's objectives. Accountability must be delegated to every member of the firm. Clear and concise roles and goals need to be communicated.

Then you must take action. Talking about management and goals is a waste of time otherwise. Taking action means mentoring associates - not only as to how to practice law, but how to act. Mentoring is a way to reclaim the lost art of apprenticeship. Not only will it allow the partners to dictate how the associate acts, but it also creates a bond of acceptance within the firm that the associate is part of the team. That can only help in fostering trust, a central component in management.

Measurement improves results. Always measure the effectiveness of your plan by again receiving feedback. Keep the upward review process going - quarterly, semi-annually, annually, whatever time frame will maximize the effectiveness of the campaign (understanding the resource drain on the review process - you don't want to lose productivity as a result of processes established to improve productivity). My suggestion is semi-annual.

Measure and adjust, then repeat the process. Nothing is gained by doing something only once. Consistency is the name of the game if you want to affect the habits of others. Don't let up, don't get down, never give up. Over the long run, your efforts will be rewarded with a smooth running operation that will scale with your profits.

Related posts

• Why Law Partners Hoard Work?
• When Referring a Client to another Law Firm
• What Margin Should Your Law Firm Generate?
• What Law Firm Partners Need To Agree About
• Want To Have A Record Year For Your Law Firm?

A friend of mine practices in firm that specializes primarily in transactional work. Much of the work is billed flat fee but they still track their time so the firm can determine profitability. Recorded time is set against an attorney's budgeted hours for the year so that they are credited for their flat fee work. My friend lamented associates padding their worked hours for flat fee work so they make their budget numbers. In this case, padding hours doesn't affect clients since the fee is pre-set but it does affect reporting of profitability.

Aric Press, Editor-In-Chief of The American Lawyer, wrote in the December, 2007, In-House article that 2008 may well be the year when clients start to demand alternative fee arrangements:

One of the unintended consequences of electronic billing is that clients can now easily compute and compare the cost of tasks. Soon there may be other technological threats based on knowledge management that can convert once complex acts of lawyering into rather commoditized routines.

I have been pretty adamant in my defense of the billable hour. That doesn't mean that I am against alternative fee arrangements when the use of them will improve the efficiency of the firm and thus increase profits. Recording time, regardless of fee arrangement, is still a good idea. However, sometimes it just makes more sense to bill using fixed fees for certain tasks.

Why not take advantage of this and place an internal value on the task as well? You can do this by determining the time it takes to perform the task, then mark it up to the market price (perhaps based on the hourly rate times the time it should take to perform it). When a task is routine, standardization gives firms opportunities that can revolutionize a firm's business model. Not only will attorneys have a value based on their billable hour, but certain repetitive and reproducible tasks can be valued as well. Your firm will diversify its product offerings to clients, giving them more options for services and giving you more options to strengthen the client relationship. You could ostensibly set a price list for legal products - in effect competing with the emerging online forms market.

In the example of my friend's firm, creating a standard task that is reproducible and given a proper value reduces the inaccuracies in reporting due to "padding time" by associates trying to make their numbers. In the example of the firm whose client has already placed billing guidelines on a firm, this has the equal benefit of both providing cost certainty to the client and saving the attorney from repetitive time entry.

There is also the benefit to the general practice firm. The firm can market package transaction services at a set rate, and tack on billable hours beyond the scope of the repetitive (and priced) task. Sound a bit like value-billing?

How would this work? For transactional work, it would be as simple as setting a value upon a routine task, such as creating a will. For a simple will, attorneys will determine what the variables are, determine what it has cost in the past, agree upon an acceptable price based on market acceptance and variables, then price it.

In a litigation matter, it is no different. Many firms are already required to provide budgets based on tasks for the benefit of client cost allocation. Each task that the firm performs can be priced. Litigators can anticipate the course of the suit and determine a cost for the entire matter. There should be a value placed upon every legal task, whether it be writing a status letter, reviewing a file, etc. The price can take into consideration variance in time it takes for different attorneys to perform the task. That is up to the firm to decide.

By standardizing the value of certain tasks, it also opens another opportunity for building firm expertise: giving royalties to attorneys who create reproducible work product. Firms spend years building up forms. Forms are rarely created again - they are typically modified. Yet no one gets credit for creating the forms.

By giving an attorney a royalty for a form, you encourage expertise to be passed on to the rest of the firm. You can position attorneys who have a talent for researching and integrating current law into forms as work product creators and attorneys who are better at managing relationships and matters representing clients. Both have value. Both can be compensated based on the work they perform. Form writers would receive a percentage of the cost of the task as a royalty for a certain time period whenever their form is used. Just as you should place a time limit on origination credit, you should only provide royalties on forms for a certain time.

How can this be advantageous to the firm? Several ways:

• It encourages information sharing within the firm.
• It compensates those who provide value to others in the firm.
• It can further a strategy of increasing leverage by giving credit to partners while reducing their billable hours.
• It transfers the wealth of knowledge gained at the firm's expense back to the firm.
• It can aid the strategy of succession planning by providing a route to semi-retirement while ensuring that the firm maintain its areas of specialization.
• It allows partners to spend more time on what they excel in most: rainmakers focused on marketing efforts and strategic planning and grinders developing work product.
• It gives firms an opportunity to give associates responsibilities that will benefit the firm as well as the associate.

Of course, with any change in policy, there are uncertainties that have to be addressed. For example, what if another attorney within the firm finds a problematic provision in the form and proposes to change a few clauses? What if the attorney proposes an entirely new