While sitting on a plane on the way to the ABA Techshow, I was reading the February 2008 issue of the Harvard Business Review.  An article titled, Task, Not Time:  Profile of a Gen Y Job, caught my eye.  I often hear managing attorneys lament the lack of motivation of associates.  The article in the HBR may provide a reason for the disconnect - it isn't that young associates are not motivated, but that they may respond differently than their elders to the conventions of work.  Where many look to the hours you spend at the office as a measure of productivity, the HBR article suggests that the younger generation looks more to results, or task-based productivity.

Many younger employees find they can complete tasks faster than older workers,perhaps partly because of technological proficiency but even more . . . because they work differently.  They spend less time scheduling and are comfortable coordinating electronically.  They resent being asked to log hours and stay in the office after their tasks are done, and the idea of face time really annoys them.  [Generation] Ys love to work asynchronously - anytime, anywhere.  One said during out research, "What is it with you people and 8:30am?"

Does this explanation fit with your experience? 

The article suggests ways to devise a better model of how to define work:

• Articulate the results you expect - and tie accountability to getting the job done;
• Make physical attendance in the office, including at meetings, optional;
• Gauge performance on the quality of work performed;
• Help managers and employees learn to measure dedication in ways other than face time;
• Use today's networking capabilities to allow employees to work from anywhere;
• Support the changes by creating drop-in centers

The above also appears to support what Chuck Newton has termed the 3rd wave law firm. 

Related posts

• What's Wrong With Billing By The Hour?
• Speeding Up Law Firm Billing and Collection
• Pirates within the Law Firm
• Motivating Law Firm Rainmakers
• Law Firms Need More Face Time

The 5 key performance indicators all law firms should measure are:

• Rate
• Realization
• Utilization/ Productivity
• Leverage
• Margin

This week each day I will focus on one of the above. Today the focus is on realization.

Realization is a word with many meanings. Depending on what you want to see, it could mean the percentage of what was billed from what was worked (billing realization), the percentage of what was collected from what was billed (collection realization), or the percentage of what was collected from what was worked at standard rates. Further, you can look at realization on the basis of standard rate or negotiated rate (standard rate realization). This article will take a look at billing, collection, and overall realization from a performance measurement perspective. For some previous posts on realization, please read What Is Realization?, Measuring Law Firm Collection Realization, Collection Realization In The Law Firm, Law Firm Standard Rate Realization, and Role of Realization in the Law Practice Business Model.

Why is it important to track realization? The answer is efficiency. How efficient are you in converting work to cash? Each percentage point lost represents money out of the pocket of the firm. Firms that don't track realization will only find success by accident. Tracking realization at every step in the process will help your firm become more efficient and thus more profitable.

Sometimes referred to as "accrual" realization, billing realization looks at what work you performed at your standard rate and compares it to what you bill. Your standard rate is the rate you would charge a new client before any negotiated discounts. Some only want to look at negotiated or actual rate that you are charging to a client and that is fine, but you should also look at what percentage you are billing based on your standard or, as I call it, your "aspirational" rate. That way you can measure the difference between what you should be receiving based on what you believe you are worth and what you are actually getting.

Let's say your standard rate is $250 per hour. For client ABC, Inc. you and your associate perform 5 hours of quality, best in-industry work on the DEF matter. Because ABC gives you 200 matters per year as part of the guaranteed 20% of their workload for your region, you have provided them a nice 30% discount on the rate. $175 x 5 hours gives you $875 of billable work. However, once you see the pre-bill, you notice that 2.5 hours was spent by your associate "reviewing draft of status letter". You aren't going to make your client pay 2.5 hours for this, so you write it down to .5, reducing the bill by $350. Your bill the client for $525.

What is your billing realization? Based on your standard rate, you would have charged $1,250. This is your standard value for the work performed. There is a $725 loss from the negotiated rate and write down. Your billing realization is determined by dividing your billed amount, $525, by the standard value, $1,250. Your billing realization based on standard rates is therefore 42%. If you based it on your negotiated rate, your realization is $525 divided by $875, or 60%. Either way it's money lost due to inefficiency.

Ok, so you have billed $525. The invoice reaches your client, they notice a charge for .2 hours with a narrative "Telephone call with Ed regarding his paternity test - advised he should start saving for child support." Since the matter for client ABC, Inc. was related to a breach of contract claim, they requested that the time related to the erroneous entry be taken off the bill. You adjust the bill $35 and $495 is promptly paid. Your collection realization is 94%, another hit on your profits due to a lack of attention to reviewing the bill; ie, inefficiency.

Overall realization based on standard rate would be $495 divided by $1,250, or 40%. Overall realization using your negotiated rate is $495 divided by $875 or 57%. You won't make a living with these numbers. However, does any of the above (except maybe the reason for the post-bill adjustment) look that out of the ordinary? The only difference is that I am looking at realization at a per invoice level rather than a global level.

According to the 2007 Law Firm Economic Survey from LexisNexis, billing realization has a relationship to increased partner income while collection realization doesn't. Though overall realization is preferred, tracking billing realization appears to have the most impact on revenue. The charts below illustrate this:

The first graph represents cash basis, or collection realization. It is split up by quartile, the first quartile representing the best performing firms in terms of per partner income and the 4th quartile representing firms with the lowest per partner income. Note that there is no link between cash basis realization and per partner income. In fact, those in the 3rd quartile had the best collection realization, while the best performing firms in the 1st quartile were over 3 percentage points less. In the second graph, which represents billing or accrual realization, there is a clear correlation between the realization percentages and per partner income, regardless of whether you compare based on standard rates or negotiated rates.

Ultimately, the best practice would be to track overall realization based on your standard rate. However, the above provides some insight into where most of the money is being lost. It appears that if you can get control over pre-bill adjustments, your revenue will increase as will per partner income.

Ways to increase realization:

• Don't negotiate your standard rate away without volume guarantees.
• Pay attention to mark downs. If they must happen, make attorneys note a reason. If it is correctable, correct it so you can decrease mark downs.
• Bill. WIP is inventory and loses value every day it sits on the shelves (your desk).
• Don't wait months for a client to call and try to negotiate down their bill. Stay on top of receivables.
• Be efficient in how you work, how to bill and how you collect. Modify your processes to the extent you already have them. Develop a process to the extent you don't. Measure your performance and prepare to adjust if your process isn't yielding the results you desire.

Along with other key profit drivers, realization is something you should track regularly. Utilizing technology will help you achieve your goals. Tools such as Juris® Active Information can alert users when their realization goes below their desired percentage. Benchmarking tools such as Lexis® Insight can compare your realization numbers to your peers. Measure against your own goals and the performance of your peers to gain insight as you how your firm performs against others in the marketplace.

There's no reason law firms can't earn more even in a rescessionary economic cycle - unless they don't measure performance. Don't leave the financial state of your firm to chance. Measure your performance.

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

• Law Firm Business Model - Measuring Rate
• Law Firm Business Model: Margin
• Law Firm Business Model - Leverage
• Law Firm Financial Management-Getting it Right!
• RULES: Another Path to Law Firm Success

The 5 key performance indicators all law firms should measure are:

• Rate
• Realization
• Utilization/ Productivity
• Leverage
• Margin

This week each day I will focus on one of the above. Today the focus is on leverage.

Head count leverage is by far the most difficult indicator to change. Hiring new associates involves much risk, plus you not only need to have the workload, you have to have partners who are willing to share that workload. Some previous posts related to leverage are What Is Leverage?, Best Law Firm Practices for Increasing Leverage, Handling Complexities of Law Firm Leverage, Billable Hours vs. Head Count Leverage In Law Firms, and Leverage Can Help and Hurt Law Firms.

The two types of leverage that will be the subject of this article are head count leverage and billable hour leverage. Head count leverage is the ratio of all non-equity partner fee earners to equity partners. Billable hour leverage is the total sum of all non-equity partner fee earner billable hours divided by the total billable hours of equity partners. The goal is to increase leverage if your partners have reached or exceeded the target billable hour threshold per year. What that number is varies from firm to firm, but in the 2007 Law Firm Economic Survey by LexisNexis , we used a baseline of 1,800 billable hours. I consider 2,000 hours (40 hours per week based on a 50 week work year) as the maximum reasonable output that one should expect from a fee earner. Of that, 4 hours per week can be reasonably dedicated to non-billable activities. As so many who argue for alternative fee arrangements, there are only so many hours an individual may work. After reaching this threshold, it is imperative that work is passed to another fee earner if you want to increase income over the long term (ie, firm growth). Increasing the headcount of non-equity fee earners to handle accretive work (as opposed to absorbing work that could be handled by others) is central in making leverage work to increase income.

According to the 2007 LexisNexis survey, partners are still billing more than associates but continue to project that they will pass work on and reduce their own workload. It appears talking about it is easier than doing it.

Head count leverage is obviously risky if you don't have full utilization of your existing fee earners. If you add staff before full utilization, you are merely absorbing someone else's work - a sure way to lower profits. Plans to increase head count leverage are discussed in years, not months. First and foremost there must be a need. Otherwise, it isn't going to benefit the firm. Still, if used correctly, increasing leverage will increase partner income. The best performing firms in the 2007 LexisNexis survey also had the highest head count leverage.

The best performing firms also had the highest billable hour leverage. This is where firms can make immediate changes and get results measured in months. The key is measuring fee earner productivity. In mid-size firms, partners typically outwork the associates. In order to benefit from leverage (whether it be head count or billable hour leverage), associated must be fully utilized. Before I go any further, let me clarify what I mean by "fully utilized". It doesn't mean "work the suckers until they keel over". It means determining what the maximum amount of billable hours should be (governed by firm culture and reasonable expectations) and don't hire a single person until associates reach that threshold consistently. The whining about associates being overworked may be true in biglaw, but it doesn't appear to exist in mid-sized firms. In mid-size firms, partners are the overworked ones and most don't complain. Finding young associates who have proper work ethic is more the concern (as one managing partner told me recently, "we can't find associates that want to work!") but that is a topic for another article.

What are some ways to increase billable hour leverage?

• Increase paralegal hours or don't retain them. Paralegals are chronically underutilized. If you don't intend on using them, don't hire them. If you only have 600 hours of billable work for a paralegal and your associates are billing 1,300 hours, the paralegal is lowering both productivity and effective rate.
• Introduce partner caps on billable hours. This is one I expect will be well-received by work hoarders. The idea is to set a maximum annual billable hour requirement - once reached, all further work must go to client development and all billable work must be shifted to available resources. This is a drastic measure and should be instituted only to initiate change when other attempts at shifting workload have failed. It is not feasible over the long term and in firms that have a lockstep compensation system it isn't a good idea period. However, excessive workload is an important requirement to increasing leverage. Client development is key to bringing in more work and partners are in the best position to do rainmaking activities. Whatever it takes to get partners to act like owners of a company (not a confederation of sole proprietors) is worth trying.
• Mentoring activities. Mentoring is a nonbillable but crucial activity. Encouraging mentoring will force partners to do things besides bill time - things that will ultimately make the firm more competitive and profitable. Mentoring is an art not used enough and associates who are properly mentored are in a better position to succeed and develop into good future partners. The work that would have been done by the partner will then get shifted to the associate. Partners should focus on doing work that demands the highest rate so that there isn't as much of a profit hit when implementing mentorship programs.
• Change the criteria for achieving partnership status. Do away with lockstep compensation and similar paths to partnership. In its place create compensation plans based not only on billable work but firm citizenship. Introduce non-equity partnership programs that provide a place for excellent associates who may not be good owners (ie, don't have the drive or talent for client development and management - ie, grinders).
• Change your compensation plan to reward not only billable activities, but non-billable activities. Make shifting workload with mentoring a measurable performance indicator for compensation purposes.

It takes planning to make leverage work to improve profits. Determine where you want to be in terms of fee earner headcount. Look at where you are today in terms of client development. Look at where you are in utilizing your non-equity fee earners. Make your objectives clear and measurable. Track them - and hold everyone accountable for the success of the plan.

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

• Law Firm Business Model: Margin
• Law Firm Business Model - Realization
• Law Firm Business Model - Measuring Rate
• Billable Hours vs. Head Count Leverage in Law Firms
• Best Law Firm Practices for Increasing Utilization

The 5 key performance indicators all law firms should measure are:

• Rate
• Realization
• Utilization/ Productivity
• Leverage
• Margin

This week each day I will focus on one of the above. Today the focus is on margin.

Margin is partners' profits divided by firm revenues. It is the percentage of revenue left after all operating expenses have been paid (not including partner salaries and distributions). For previous posts on margin, look here, here, here, here, and here.

There's no secret to increasing margin. Do a good job, be fair to clients, focus on client development, bill what you are worth, never devalue your time, and make sure costs rise proportionately to revenue. You don't increase margin over the long term by cutting costs. Reducing expenses is either done to correct a past mistake in investment or to replace lost revenues. Neither are positive causes. If you want to grow, you have to spend.

The point is made in the 2007 Law Firm Economic Survey from LexisNexis as well. The firms who had the highest per partner income spent the most. The firms with the highest margins spent the most.

The firms with the highest per partner income are represented in the Q1 column. The operating margin is at nearly 51% and their expenses per head are nearly $100,000. Compare that to the lowest performing firms. In the Q4 column, margin is a paltry 29% but they saved money - only $84,000 per head cost. You can't grow with a constrictive operating budget. Note that both the best performing and worst performing firms also spent a nearly identical percentage of their budgets on technology. This could mean that technology isn't being utilized properly in the poor performing firms (due no doubt to a lack of services if experience tells me anything) or that poor performing firms are attempting to utilize technology to manage their practice. I am encouraged to think the latter and am curious as to whether those firms are improving their practice as a result. There are so many variables to successful implementation of a process, but looking at these firms in 5 years might be a good follow up.

The way to improve margins may be different for each firm depending on where they start, but there are still two constants: cutting costs do not equate to long-term increases in per partner income and measurement improves results. With any action geared to improve the financial performance of your firm, you must measure it and adjust when you get off track.

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

• Law Firm Business Model - Leverage
• Law Firm Business Model - Measuring Rate
• Law Firm Business Model - Realization
• Measurement Improves Law Firm Performance
• What Margin Should Your Law Firm Generate?

The 5 key performance indicators all law firms should measure are:

• Rate
• Realization
• Utilization/ Productivity
• Leverage
• Margin

This week each day I will focus on one of the above. Today the focus is on rate.

For a primer, look at some prior posts related to rate here, here, here, here, and here. The importance of tracking rate shouldn't surprise anyone. However, I run into firm after firm who either don't increase rates annually or don't track effective rate. How can you improve performance if you don't measure it?

Source: Timothy McMahon (http://www.inflationdata.com)

The above chart shows the trend in inflation since 1990. Failure to increase rates annually at the rate of inflation during the 1990's wouldn't have as much of an effect on profits considering the economic boom the US experienced along with low inflation. That changed in 2002 and there has been a steady increase in inflation for the past 6 years. In fact, as of December, 2007, the consumer price index (which includes the price for food and oil) was at 4%. If you are not increasing your rate at least by the percentage of inflation, you are working for less money every year. It isn't known where inflation will be at the end of this year, and some are forecasting that this year will see some lower inflation, but the point isn't to predict lower profits when inflation is higher or higher profits when inflation is lower - it is to keep up with the rate of inflation and be certain your rate increases take it into consideration so that you are immune to the index altogether.

Inflation is a starting point - other factors such as relative expertise in a given area of law can also factor into rate. In your retention agreements, you can provide cost predictability to your clients by treating it like one would a long-term lease. You factor price increases into the agreement so that they know the percentage increase each year. In volatile times (such as the last few years), it may be better to treat it more like a mortage, setting a range of increase that won't go beyond a certain ceiling. Then annual increases can meet margin goals as well as inflation.

Measure the effective blended rate consistently so that you know if the rate is going up and down throughout the year. Why is this important? Assuming that your firm has established rate goals for the year, the blended rate (the combined average of all fee earners' rates) should be known. If the rate is decreasing, then something is wrong. The most likely culprit is pre-bill or post-bill adjustments. If your attorneys are devaluing their work, there needs to be a reason - otherwise, you will be sending a signal to the client that you are over charging them and adjusting to make it more fair. This is not the way to make it easier to raise rates in the future. Further, if you are trying to meet a financial objective, write downs and mark offs go directly to the bottom line and put you behind in reaching your financial goals.

The effective rate is calculated after the invoice is paid. It gives you the actual value of your services. In the report below, productivity, realization, and rate are tracked. The image below it is a blow up of the rate section of the report. In it you can see the value of the hours worked at your standard rate, your actual or negotiated rate, the billed rate after mark down but before invoice discounts, the billed rate after discounts, and the collected rate after post-bill adjustments. It is broken down both by both worked hours and billed hours.

In the above, you can instantly see that the time keeper is writing up his negotiated rate at pre-bill edit to conform with his desired standard rate. One way you achieve this (ethically) is by the use of firm-wide standards for the cost of a task. You must determine the time it takes generally to do the task and then price it accordingly. If you have efficient attorneys that can do the task in less time than the standard, he/she may write up the bill to conform (likewise, if it takes longer, you must write it down). This way an efficient attorney may mark up his time and thus increase his effective rate. For those who advocate value billing, here it is at work. The better value goes to either the efficient attorney or the client of the inefficient attorney. Tracking effective blended rate regularly will allow you to determine whether your attorneys are being efficient in their processes and if they are on track to reach the financial goals or not. If they are not, you can act on it well before it becomes an uncorrectable problem.

At the same time, the above time keeper may be increasing his rate unethically, which may lead to undesirable consequences (firm reputation as well as ethical violations may be the result). Without regular reporting on the above, you won't have the information to know which is occurring.

Price increase is one factor to consider in increasing effective blended rate. It isn't the only factor. Many firms, especially those who work in corporate defense litigation, have traded high rates for volume. In practice areas where there is not a lot of price flexibility and the rate is usually heavily discounted to get the business, the key is to have an efficient workflow process and be very wary of mark downs. In some firms, the rate can absorb an inefficient operation. In corporate defense, you may not have that luxury. On top of that, more and more corporate clients are levying restrictive billing guidelines that can seriously affect effective rate. Not only can non-compliance with client billing guidelines delay payment, it can lead to nonpayment of certain tasks altogether.

Improving workflow efficiency is the easiest way to increase effective rate. However, expectation of reciprocity from a client who expects you to provide quality service at a reduced rate wouldn't hurt. Why is it that a client can expect you to lower rate for their volume when you are not guaranteed any volume from them? In my opinion, not only would I work to increase rate, I would tie the frequency and level of the increase on the volume the client provides. If the client is willing to guarantee a certain percentage of their work for a given year, I would be more willing to hold rates steady or only increase them by the annual rate of inflation. Don't be afraid to treat your corporate clients like a corporation. They are treating you like a business. Although restrictive, billing guidelines provide a measure of cost certainty by the tracking of costs associated with a task. They know what it costs for you to do your work. You better know it too - and make sure you are making a profit from the work you do.

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

• Law Firm Business Model: Margin
• Law Firm Business Model - Realization
• Law Firm Business Model - Leverage
• RULES: Another Path to Law Firm Success
• Law Firm Growth Prospects - 2005 Survey Results

Related posts

• RULES: Another Path to Law Firm Success
• Law Firm Financial Management-Getting it Right!
• Top 25% of Law Firms Earn Margins Above 40%
• Six Basic Law Firm Metrics
• Nine Steps to Improved Law Firm Financial Performance in the Coming Year

Related posts

• Increasing a Law Firm's Effective Rate
• Modeling the Law Firm's Financial Performance
• Measuring Law Firm Utilization (Billable Hours) and Blended Rate
• Law Firm Business Model - Measuring Rate
• High Performing Law Firms Spend More

The question of leverage is becoming more complicated given the increasing use of part-time lawyers and those working flexible schedules. Likewise, a pure head count approach where a firm underutilizes non-partner lawyers produces a misleading result.

William Johnston and Kristin Stark of Hildebrandt International address the leverage and underutilization issue in their paper titled Are We Approaching a Profitability Plateau?

“While partner/associate leverage is widely regarded as one of the drivers of economic performance (much like realization, productivity, etc.), leverage of billable hours is more important and should be given greater attention than leverage based on body count.  Leverage is often stated as the ratio of non-equity lawyers to equity partners; economic leverage focuses on the total billable hours each group works.  A surprising number of firms, including some of the largest firms in the country, have solid leverage based on body count, but only mediocre leverage when based on billable hours.  These firms should reevaluate their use of leverage. Leverage is only positive when you can keep the timekeepers busy. After all, having a high associate-to-partner ratio is fairly meaningless if the associates are underutilized. Firms where 'body count' leverage far exceeds billable hour leverage typically have a large number of lawyers who neither work very hard as a working attorney nor generate significant business for the firm.  Successful firms have the courage to take action when lawyers under perform, including counseling lawyers out of the firm.”    

To see what the authors are talking about, compute your firm’s body count leverage and then compute the ratio of non-partner billable hours to partner hours.  To illustrate, the related numbers for a composite of all survived firms as determined by the 2006 Juris Law Firm Economic Survey were as follows:

            Partners: 12

            Associates: 12

            Leverage based on Body Count 1:1

            Partner hours:  19,956

            Associate hours: 17,724

            Leverage based on hours: 0.89:1

While the body count leverage is 1 to 1, associates' hours were 89 percent of those produced by a partner, reaffirming the chronic underutilization of associates in midrange firms.  

Morepartnerincome differs with the Hildebrandt team when it comes to corrective steps.  Conditions on the ground may, in some cases, warrant thinning the law firm ranks of under-producing lawyers. However,  spotty cases of attorneys who are inclined not to “work very hard” cannot account for across-the-board low body count leverage and even lower hourly leverage among 75 percent of midsized law firms. The blame rests not on lazy lawyers, but on law firm partners who hoard work at the expense of delegation and business development.  Chopping heads is a short-term fix to stop the blood flow. The long-term solution is improved scheduling and delegation coupled with increased partner emphasis on business development, recruiting, and association development.

Back to the issue of measuring leverage, the issue of relying on body count leverage alone raised by the Hildebrandt authors illustrates why sound management requires a balanced approach in using law firm performance metrics.  Leverage, utilization, price, realization, and margin must all be considered.  Top performing law firms score highly in all metric categories.  When it comes to measuring leverage, part-time and flex schedule attorneys add an additional complication. One simplifying technique is to use non-equity equivalents in computing traditional body count leverage.  Two half-time associates equal one non-equity equivalent, for example. When using equivalents, the fractional measure should be based on compensation not on the billable hours that part-timers generate.  If a flex hour attorney is costing you two-thirds of a comparable associate, they are two-thirds of a non-equity equivalent, even if they are producing at the annual level of 500 or 1500 hours. 

Morepartnerincome.com is sponsored by Juris, Inc.  For information about Juris® products and services for increasing law firm performance and partner income, go to www.Juris.com.

Related posts

• Law Firm Business Model - Leverage
• Law Firm Growth Prospects - 2005 Survey Results
• High Performing Law Firms Spend More
• The Case Against Income Partners
• Midsized Firms Have Available Capacity and a Pricing Advantage

What top-level metrics should you track? If you are among the 20 percent of midsized firms who have a formal planning process, what you track depends on that plan and your objectives. But regardless, there are six basic metrics that every firm should track:

Productivity or Utilization

Effective (Blended) Rate

Realization

Margin

Days of unbilled fees (work in process)

Days of billed fees outstanding (accounts receivable)

Current performance should be compared to prior periods to determine if the firm's financial performance is improving, holding its own, or declining. It should be compared to the firm’s targets to determine if it is achieving its objectives. It should be compared to benchmarks of similar firms. Doing so will most likely indicate areas that deserve attention and that represent lost opportunities.

While I have not included it among the basic metrics, leverage is still the primary factor correlating with per-partner income. For example, in a recent survey, the top performing 25 percent of midsized firms had 2.5 associates for every partner, compared with an average of 1.3 associates for all firms. The chart below appears in the Juris Law Firm Economic Survey of midsized firms for 2005. The chart clearly illustrates the dominant influence of leverage on per-partner income.

If you need help computing any of the six basic metrics, refer to the previous posts linked below:

• What is Utilization?
• What is Blended Rate?
• What is realization?
• Measuring Law Firm Collection Realization
• Measuring Law Firm Margin
• Measuring Law Firm Work-in-Process Days
• Measuring Law Firm Accounts Receivable Days Outstanding

Morepartnerincome.com is sponsored by Juris, Inc. For information about Juris® products and services for increasing law firm performance and partner income, go to www.Juris.com.

Related posts

• Modeling the Law Firm's Financial Performance
• Law Firm Business Model: Margin
• Law Firm Business Model - Leverage
• Top 25% of Law Firms Earn Margins Above 40%
• RULES: Another Path to Law Firm Success

The most profitable firms don’t have the lowest cost structure. That was one of the findings from a recent Juris, Inc. survey. Top performing firms had higher per-head operating expenses and a higher ratio of non-fee earners to fee earners. Full survey details will become available later this month.

The findings provide more evidence that it pays to focus on revenue rather than cost reduction. That is not to say that profitable firms spend recklessly. While costs per head are higher, the firm’s total cost as a percentage of revenue was lower due to higher revenue per partner and per head.

Cost cutting campaigns will not move a law firm into the category of a top performer. If you want to increase profitability, you need to concentrate on increasing revenue rather than focusing attention on reducing expenses. You should pursue business development as well as opportunities to increase productivity, effective rate, and realization. Eliminating amenities, downgrading facilities, reducing personnel, holding back on salary increases, and reducing administrative staff is likely to cause more harm than gain.

Morepartnerincome.com is sponsored by Juris, Inc. For information about Juris® products and services for increasing law firm performance and partner income, go to www.Juris.com.

Related posts

• Cost Cutting Isn't The Answer
• Billable Hours vs. Head Count Leverage in Law Firms
• Want To Have A Record Year For Your Law Firm?
• Modeling the Law Firm's Financial Performance
• Law Firm Growth Prospects - 2005 Survey Results