January 23, 2008

Law Firm Business Model: Margin

12:00 am

 

The 5 all should measure are:

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

Margin is partners' 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 spent the most.

opex.JPG

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 - 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 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 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 ®. For information about products and services for increasing law and partner income contact National Sales Center:

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

Related posts

Permalink Print Add Comment

Filed under Blog, Law Firm Bus Model, Margin by Brian J. Ritchey

Leave a Comment

Subscribe without commenting

January 21, 2008

Law Firm Business Model - Measuring Rate

12:00 am

The 5 all should measure are:

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 . How can you improve performance if you don't measure it?

Annual_Inflation_chart.jpg

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 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 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 when inflation is higher or higher 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 ' 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 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 , write downs and mark offs go directly to the bottom line and put you behind in reaching your financial goals.

 

The is calculated after the invoice is paid. It gives you the actual value of your services. In the report below, , , 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.

 

collectiontkprsmallrate.JPGrate.JPG

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 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 . 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 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 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 . Not only can non-compliance with client billing guidelines delay payment, it can lead to nonpayment of certain tasks altogether.

Improving workflow is the easiest way to increase . 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 ®. For information about products and services for increasing law and partner income contact National Sales Center:

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

Related posts

Permalink Print Add Comment

Filed under Law Firm Bus Model, Rate by Brian J. Ritchey

January 15, 2008

Reward Attorneys for the Commoditization of Reproducible Work

12:04 am

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 . 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 .

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 . That doesn't mean that I am against alternative fee arrangements when the use of them will improve the of the firm and thus increase . 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 . Not only will have a value based on their , 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, 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 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 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 who have a talent for researching and integrating current law into forms as work product creators and 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 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 form? Although in theory it would be a good thing to have several different forms from which to choose, logistically it may make more sense for your firm to settle on a preferred form from which may receive a royalty. That along with determination of the royalty percentage is sure to provide lively discussion in the partner meeting.

Whatever direction your firm goes when applying new policies, it should conform with a universal requirement of periodic and adjustment.

Related posts

Permalink Print 1 Comment

Filed under Alternative Billing, Management, Policies/ Procedures by Brian J. Ritchey

May 25, 2007

The Lever to Pull to Increase Existing Law Firm Profits

10:22 am
This post contains content viewable to subscribers only. Registration is free and gives you access to exclusive articles not found anywhere else, including interviews with managing partners and practice-specific articles written by attorneys specializing in the industry. Subscribe now to gain access to this content.

Related posts

Permalink Print Add Comment

Filed under Pricing, Subscriber Content by Tom Collins

March 21, 2007

Law Firm Scheduling, Is Continuity Good or Bad?

10:54 am

In responding to a question, David Maister wrote the following:

 

“Ultimately, clients care about quality, and service - continuity is just a short-hand rule-of-thumb to try to get to these things. If you can be more thoughtful about how you achieve these things, they will give you more leeway in pursuing your other goals and won't insist on always seeing the same faces. And, with more thoughtful staffing, you'll be able to improve , , learning and morale.”

 

The work one gets determines the future of the individual attorney.  Give them limited exposure, the same old stuff or the same clients year after year, and you will neglect the full opportunity to enhance the value and potential of the attorney. You are likely to lose them to someone who they think is more concerned about their professional development.  It is over the professional development issue that most associates switch firms.

 

The problem appears to be a general lack of centralized schedule management in midrange .  Someone other than each individual partner needs to manage firm-wide scheduling. An alternative is needed to the frequently seen model where work is doled out by partners to “their associates” or “their favorite associates.” There has to be a counterweight to the easy and expedient “continuity” method that leaves associates stuck working with the same partner, same client, and/or on the same style matter.

 

For an enterprise whose factory floor is composed of talented people rather than machines, it is surprising that more technology is not available and used for managing the maintenance (professional development) and scheduling of the firm’s production resources (its professional talent).  This is one of the areas of future product development that the team has been considering. Technology is one thing; having a culture that makes scheduling a strategic issue must come first.  How do you have the best people and the best future leaders without making their development a priority?  How can you do that if scheduling is not a key tactic in that pursuit? 

 

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

Related posts

Permalink Print Add Comment

Filed under HR by Tom Collins

December 11, 2006

450 Law Firms Report Issues and Trends

11:21 am

The October issue of the Leadership Exchange published by the Greater Los Angeles ALA includes some of the results of the national law firm survey conducted by CD Richard Ellis Law Firm Practice Group. According to Jay Olshonsky, managing director of the Law Firm Practice Group, nearly 400 participated in the survey, which was distributed to 4500 firms.

Unlike the Law Firm , the Ellis survey included firms in the Am Law 200 list; however, 75 percent of the participants had less than 50 .

While growth was the number one management issue for reporting firms, it is worth noting that management/ leadership and competition virtually tied for the second spot on the list of most pressing issues. Of firms surveyed, 51 percent consider the economy to be their number one threat and yet 67 percent say their are on the increase.

While I am sure it will break the heart of the legal media to hear it, 86 percent of responding individuals reported that they were satisfied to very satisfied with the work environment of their firm. On the other hand, it was disappointing to note that firms are spending less on marketing, with 42 percent spending less than 1 percent of fee revenues on marketing. Technology is getting more , with 37 percent spending 4 percent to 7 percent of their revenues on technology. Still, about half of reporting firms spend less than 4 percent of their revenues on the law firm factory floor (law firm technology).

Rent is an important law firm expense, and it is interesting to note that 2006 saw a decline in the per-attorney square footage. In 27 percent of firms, the per-attorney square footage is less than 600 square feet. Fifty five percent report that their facilities average between 600 and 800 square feet per attorney. Rental expense for the majority of firms (70 percent) is less than 6 percent of fees.

For more information about the survey, contact the author Jay Olshonsky at lfpg@cbre.com or go to www.lawfirmpracticegroup.cbre.com. You can read Mr. Olshonsky’s article by going to www.glaala.org. You can find additional information on law firm issues and economics in the Juris Law Firm Economic Survey of midsized .

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

Related posts

Permalink Print

Filed under Blog by Tom Collins

April 18, 2006

Growing a Law Firm by Cutting Clients

11:08 am

 An article in the April 2006 titled “Growing by Cutting” caught my attention. 

 

It was a slightly different view than the 80/20 rule that has been around almost since the advent of modern management.  The 80/20 rule states that in just about any activity, 20% of that activity produces 80% of all the value. The remaining 80% of activity, for all practical purposes, is a drag on the rest. From an accountant’s standpoint, when costs are fully allocated, 80% of a law firm’s clients are likely to be losers.   

 

The 80/20 rule is a useful management concept, but those who latch on to it as a management mandate take its implications to the extreme with unintended negative consequences. 

 

I believe firmly in the “rule of the fewest”.  When you consider your objectives, the rule of the fewest implies that you should not have any more clients than necessary to achieve your . You should not have more and support employees than necessary to accomplish the .  Nor should you spread the firm over more than necessary, etc.. Why? Because “things” create work, friction, overhead or whatever. The more “activities” you are involved in, and the more “things” you have involved in those activities, the more wasted energy and cost you incur.

 

However, we have all seen the consequences in the consumer world when management latches on to the 80/20 rule to minimize inventories and maximize . Thanks to the internet, we now have a nearly unlimited number of sources to choose from; however, the choices they offer are all the same.  In the apparel industry, if you are outside of the center area of the bell shaped curve because you’re are a little too round, too tall, too short or too thin, you are out of luck when it comes to finding your size.

 

The fact is law firm clients (even the unprofitable ones) begat even more clients. Professional work creates valuable reusable work product and experience when the work itself is done at a loss—Etc. Etc Etc. 

 

So while the 80/20 rule is a useful concept and the rule of the fewest is even better, a firm that decides to grow its by chopping off clients, offices, and talent may just wind up with a smaller firm and a smaller future.  So be careful when applying the concept—consider carefully the ancillary or indirect value of activities (values that may not be apparent to the accountant) before you start chopping.

 

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

 

Related posts

Permalink Print

Filed under Blog by Tom Collins

February 21, 2006

Unfunded Liability Results in Law Firm Dissolutions

11:58 am

In a previous post I asked, “How old is your partner team?” An even more critical question is, “Does your partnership agreement or operating agreement create an unfunded liability?” If so, it could be a fatal flaw unless corrected.

Partner agreements can call for significant continuing compensation to retired partners. Given our tax laws, pay out their on an “as they go” basis. There is no material retained earning—no significant ownership equity for the retiring partner. Law firm income isn’t distributed based on monetary investment. It is required to compensate active partners for their relative contribution to revenues and .

Agreements that provide for continuing origination credits, or other amounts, to be paid to an inactive partner place a burden on the next generation of partners. As baby boomers reach retirement age, the problem is worsening. The number of situations where the burden has broken the backs of remaining partners is increasing. Their response isn’t surprising—they simply dissolve the firm.

Retirement plans need to be funded by the individual or jointly by the firm and the individual during their productive years. Because have been paid out as earned, the retiring partners have no claim on future income once they are out of the picture. If your firm has this problem, it is in the interest of all parties to find a win/win solution that will preserve the firm and treat all the partners fairly.

 

Related posts

Permalink Print

Filed under Partner Agreements by Tom Collins

December 12, 2005

Best Law Firm Practices to Increase Partner Income

11:24 am

The short-term approach to inadequate is to increase price and reduce cost. Unfortunately, that is not necessarily the long-term fix. Consider the movie theater’s escalating cost of popcorn. Volume declines, price is increased; volume declines, price is increased; etc. The result is a continued spiraling down of the business. In the case of the law firm, law firm clients have a choice. If rates rise significantly above the market, they will take the option. Second, for all practical purposes, cost in a law firm consists of people and facilities. Reduce facilities below the appropriate level and recruiting and retention of people is affected. Likewise, clients may begin to question the firm's status and position. Reduce people cost and you are engaging in "factory closings" that reduce the capacity of the firm.

 

The approach to raising per-partner income should be done with long-range considerations. First, determine how the firm stacks up against such as those available from surveys, http://www.altmanweil.com.

 

Fix the areas where you fall short. If your collection days are longer than your , fix it¾invest in technology and/or change procedures. If work in process measured by billing days is excessive, fix it. Likewise, if utilization is too low, find out why. If you don’t have enough work, then either reduce and staff or preferably get more business. If, however, the problem is underreporting of time, then implement new tools to track and report time as worked, set individual goals, track performance and hold accountable. After you have taken short-term corrective steps, begin to look for long-term changes in the business that increase income without reducing the long-term value of the business.

 

The number one item to consider is improved marketing, especially to existing clients. The second item is adjusting to fit the nature of the practice. Third is to engage in structured planning to identify the main things the firm should concentrate on to improve the business over the long term. Fourth is to improve management with focus on the law firm - , utilization, rate, and margin. That requires a sound business system that provides the business intelligence and tools to keep the firm in line or ahead of its at all times.

 

Over the next several days, l will post a number of checklists of steps that you can consider to improve per-partner income—one checklist for each of the items listed below that were identified in David Masister's law firm business model as income drivers:

 

 

Related posts

Permalink Print

Filed under Law Firm Bus Model by Tom Collins

July 29, 2005

Law Firm Growth Prospects - 2005 Survey Results

11:21 am

Surveyed are very optimistic on growth prospects over the next three years. 64% of firms surveyed indicated that they had moderate to aggressive growth plans over the next three years.   Moderate to aggressive growth was defined as 10% to 50% increase in the number of .

The optimism seems well founded as 70% of firms grew revenue last year (31% grew between 11% and 20%) and 41% of surveyed firms grew partner income greater than 10% last year. 66% of firms grew partner income overall.

There is a high correlation between the growth in and expectations for growth in fee revenue. Accordingly, firms clearly believe that they will be able to grow fee revenue by at least the same percentage as growth in .  To the extent that firms also expect gains in , , and billing rates, it follows that are looking for fee revenue growth and per partner that exceed just the growth in  the number .

The survey was conducted by , Inc, and the Managing . In addition to grow related issues, the survey covered a broad range of operational and organizational topics.  For a copy of the , together with commentary, you can e-mail me, collins@Juris.com.

Related posts

Permalink Print

Filed under Blog by Tom Collins

Page 1 of 212»