May 21, 2007

Too Busy to Increase Law Firm Performance

10:35 am

The answer to increased performance is to step back from the daily wars of the law practice and ask, “How can we do this smarter?  How can we tie our revenue and fortunes to something more than just the partner’s ?”  in terms of , technology, knowledge management, relationships and, yes, pricing strategies is an important part of the right answer.  As for fee earner , its impact on per-partner is well known and understood.  So, it is surprising that 75 percent of midrange are not successfully implementing the strategy.

The chart shown below is one of many included in the 55-page , Inc. Law Firm published last year. The survey reflected the of midrange-sized U.S. for the year 2005. confirmed the important role that plays in determining law firm partner . The first quartile, the top performing 25 percent of , earned more than twice the per-partner income of the next highest group.

The same survey indicated that associates in half of the surveyed firms worked less than 1400 hours. Even among the top performing 50% of firms, the average billed hours for associates ranged from 1550 to 1600. The majority of midrange are both under leveraged and underutilizing the associates that they do have. The only way out of that income-limiting box is invest in improved scheduling and delegation with respect to existing non-partner resources. Partners need to give up some short term income shifting their individual effort from “billable work” to business development, recruiting, mentoring and professional development.

That is apparently a hard call for the majority of midrange firms to make.  I’m reminded of a cartoon I saw years ago.  A Gatling gun salesman was standing at the entrance to a medieval tent as the guard, complete with armor and spear, was saying, “I’m sorry, but the general says he is too busy fighting the war to meet with you.”

Work on this year’s annual is currently underway. Click here to participate and to automatically receive the results and analysis without charge.

 

Morepartnerincome.com is sponsored by , Inc.  For information about ® products and services for increasing law and partner income contact National Sales Center at 877/377-374,  e-mail info@juris.com or go to www.Juris.com.

Related posts

Permalink Print Add Comment

Filed under Leverage by Tom Collins

Leave a Comment

Subscribe without commenting

November 2, 2006

Partner Income Related to Law Firms Fees

11:26 am

The recent Law Firm Economic Survey conducted by , Inc. illustrated the relationship between the fees charged by midsized and their per-partner income. While that relationship might seem unsurprising, it should be thought provoking.

The above chart divides surveyed firms into quartiles according to per-partner income and then shows the comparison between their average fees. The actual realized blended rates, as well as reported standard rates, were lower for each subsequent quartile. Partners of in the first quartile earned twice the per-partner income of the second quartile and seven times the of partners in the fourth quartile. Is this a blinding glimpse of the obvious— that charge more make more?

Here are the important questions: Are the in the top 25 percent of surveyed firms better ? Are they smarter? Did those firms pick more profitable ? Have they done a better job at branding?

Let me suggest a simpler answer. Midsized with higher rates simply set them higher to start with! If we take a look at individual firms, we can find clear reasons why one firm can charge higher rates than others. But when I review the 2005 , these reasons don’t appear to explain the aggregated results in the survey. The composition of each quartile appears to be similar mixes of practice classes and size.

regularly increase rates from year to year to cover increased operating expenses, including associate salaries. In most cases, such increases do not contribute to higher . They simply recover higher expenses. If a firm starts with lower fee rates, they tend to stay lower in of annual or periodic increases.

Midsized need better information about competitive prices in the marketplace. Rather than think in terms of annual increases to the existing fee structure, they need to reset those fees based on market information. They need competitive and peer group intelligence. Traditional surveys provide some insight, but they are often 18 to 24 months behind the curve, and matching your individual firm to a meaningful peer group is an imperfect task. Better information is on the way through new benchmarking services such as those from Redwood Analytics, Peer Monitor and Juris Insight.

Even with better information, individual can have a difficult time restructuring rates. Compensation plans often lead to partner resistance toward anything other than moderate increases. Partners dependent on origination credit for a significant portion of their income can feel threatened by possible client defections. The best approach may be an incremental one. Reset fee structures for new business and develop an incremental plan to rework existing relationships over time. A helpful guide to price increase implementation was suggested in the prior post Law Firm Rate or Fee Increase Letter.

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 Benchmarking, Pricing by Tom Collins

October 4, 2006

Midsized Firms Have Available Capacity and a Pricing Advantage

10:21 am

has been conducting an annual Survey of Law Firm Economics since 1972. Its survey for 2005 contains information from 285 . The survey indicates associate income gains outpaced increases in . Given the associate compensation bump occurring in the current year, 2006 is likely to show more of the same. slices and dices their annual survey in many ways, and it has been one of the more popular sources for benchmarking one’s own performance against others. You can read more about the survey in their August news release or purchase the survey by going to the Altman Weil Publications, Inc. product page.

When you compare , there is always a little “apples and oranges” problem because different surveys slice things differently. Nevertheless, I thought it would be interesting to compare some of the news release numbers to those in the ® Law Firm . The survey for 2005 combined information from 274 firms compared to the 285 in ’s, so the sample sizes are the same for all practical purposes. The survey does differ through its emphasis on midsized ; whereas, 's survey includes firms with 150+ . The billing rate and billing hours reported in the news release for partners was for with 21+ years of experience and for associates with 4-5 years of experience.

from the survey is the average of all firms surveyed. The top quartile in the survey earned more than twice the average. What is striking is that midsized firm partners are on a par with firms in the survey as far as compensation is concerned, but midsized firms appear to be significantly more competitive in terms of billing rates. It follows that they must have a materially lower cost structure given comparable numbers. The implication is that midsized firms have competitive pricing for competing with large firms and may very well have more pricing increase room.

Partners are working harder in midsized firms surveyed by , Inc., and they are less skilled at fully utilizing associates. Improvements in scheduling and delegation would fall directly to the bottom line, , for midsized firms.

Considering the lower billing rates and the lower associate billable hours, in the survey compared to the news release numbers, one must conclude that midsized firms have both available capacity and the opportunity to improve pricing. Improving either or both would materially increase partner income.

You can purchase or learn more about the survey by going toJuris® Law Firm .

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 Compensation, Operations by Tom Collins

September 12, 2006

Top 25% of Law Firms Earn Margins Above 40%

11:31 am

’s Professional Services Marketing is well worth checking daily. In a recent post, he asks, "Is Your Firm’s Profit Margin 40%?” Then he points out that if it isn’t, it could be, based on his experience working with .

Larry was one the folks who teamed up with , Inc. to encourage midsized to participate in the Law Firm conducted earlier this year. The results are in and and participants should receive copies of the 55-page and analysis within the next two weeks. The report will be available to others after September 30 for $375.

Firms in the top 25 percent measured by per-partner income had an average margin greater than 40 percent. They didn’t get there by cutting costs or by having a higher than average . In fact, their cost per head is higher than the remaining 75 percent of firms. How can they spend more and still outpace other firms in terms of margin? They do it by concentrating on revenues rather than expenses. They generate more fee dollars per head through higher effective rates and better utilization of their legal team.

The Law Firm of midsized U.S. for 2005 identifies 10 important factors that influence law firm and partner . For more information about the survey or to purchase the 55-page click on the image below.

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

September 11, 2006

Survey Discloses Factors That Influence Law Firm Partner Earnings

10:19 am

In a previous post, I referred to a soon-to-be-released survey. Well, it has been released. , Inc. just announced the release of the latest annual Law Firm . The survey of midsized firms covers financial results for the year 2005.

The survey identifies ten important factors that influence law firm . You will find that the top performing firms excelled across all , not just one or two. Firms that understood those factors, set goals, measured performance, and held people accountable dramatically outperformed others. The disparity in per-partner income between the top performing 25 percent of firms and the rest of the pack is eye-opening. Partners in the top 25 percent earn twice the income of the next quartile and more than seven times the per-partner income of the lowest 25 percent.

The , one of the largest in the legal community, is unique in targeting midsized . This year’s are compiled from 274 participating midsized firms in 142 cities spread over 40 states and represent 6,000 .

Midsized can use the 55-page survey report to identify where they stand against their . They will find the accompanying analysis and recommendations of the team a useful tool for increasing .

The annual survey is shipped automatically to those firms who participated in the survey. This year’s survey is available to others for $375. For more information, select the link below.

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

June 14, 2006

Law Firm Survey Shows Link between Leverage and Partner Income

10:36 am

Stephen Collins, President of , Inc. and I paired up to present preliminary results of the ® Annual Survey of Law Firm Economics during the ALM’s June 8 Los Angeles business forum for . The information presented was preliminary and unaudited. The audit should be available in a few weeks.

If one looks at a law firm as a business for providing legal services, imply that the most important role for their partner owners is to bring in business and delegate the work to non-partner . The law firm that places partner individual as a higher priority limits the long term income of all partner owners.

Consider the chart below:

Mid-sized in the top 20% based on per-partner income had 1.7 associates to every partner. Those at the bottom in terms of partner income had only 1 associate for every two partners. The chart clearly reflects the dominate role of in determining per partner income. It is worth pointing out that even the best (the top performing 20% of mid-sized ) had only a 1.7 to 1 ratio of associates to partners versus the 2.7 to 1 enjoyed by AmLaw 200 . That difference goes a long way to explain why AmLaw 200 partner incomes are materially higher than those enjoyed by the best of the mid-size firms.

Let me add that does not depend on the nor does it require exploitation of the young. It is simple economics. For a law firm, people are required to generate work. Work generates revenue regardless of how that work is priced. Likewise, the more revenue producers per partner, the more income partners can enjoy.

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 Law Firm Bus Model, Leverage by Tom Collins

April 26, 2006

Financial Survey Targets Midsized Law Firms

10:35 am

The participation period is ending for the Law Practice Business Survey. This is your last chance to receive and analysis as a participant.

The survey is conducted by , Inc. as an extension of its Managing Partner Forums and is on track to be the largest financial survey of midsized yet, with over 400 firms participating.

Unlike surveys that target the top 100 or ’s surveys skewed to small firms, the Law Survey is aimed specifically at midsized . For the first time, midsized firms can compare their own performance to key financial and operating of similar firms to identify areas for improvement.

Aggregate and segmented will be released June 7 2006 when I team up with , Inc.’s president Stephen Collins to present at ALM’s Small Firm Business Forum in Los Angeles, California.

Don’t miss this final opportunity to participate before the survey period ends in the next few days. You can participate online or by mail using a printable survey form by going to Law Practice Business Survey.

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 4, 2006

Consensus produces better decisions for law firm planning

11:23 am

I recently read (and can’t remember where) that indicated that a consensus opinion among the populists beats those of the experts.  , Esq. picks up on that theme with his post What if Your Executive Committee’s Not So Smart?  , the host of , pointed to James Surowiecki’s 2004 publication of The Wisdom of Crowds—more evidence that the consensus forecast of a number of lay people is almost invariably superior to the individual forecast of experts and gurus in the field.

What does this mean for the managing partner?  Neither Bruce nor I would suggest man-on-the-street polling as a tool for law firm planning.  But MacEwen suggests:

“Try, for example, asking all your —even include, for the wildest and craziest among you, your clients—things like:

·        Which should we invest more in, and which less?

·        Do we have an office in a city with poor prospects, or lack an office in a city with outstanding prospects?

·        Which competitor do we need to worry about the most vis-a-vis (say) our M&A practice?

·        Who's going to win the contested election for managing partner? (Ooops—did I say that?)

The point is simply this:  The assembled expertise of your executive committee or practice group heads may not be—indeed, if you buy the notion of ‘collective intelligence,’ almost surely will not be—your most valuable resource for insight about the future.”

 

Many of the legal pundits dismiss consensus planning as a poor substitute of leadership.  I, for one, am a champion of the consensus building process.  Aside from the fact that diverse members of a planning team can cause a new idea light bulb to go off, leaders need an organization of believers if goals are to be achieved. Consensus planning is “consensus building."  It is part of the process of leadership—of aligning a team with shared core beliefs behind clearly defined and communicated objectives.

 

Many approach planning with a careless disregard for the importance of assumptions—predictions about the future.  A law firm’s plan can be no better than the planning assumptions upon which it is based.  Consensus building is particularly valuable here.  You want to include people closest to the law firm’s work, the newest to the firm, those with the most contact with outside of the firm, those competing for new clients, those most knowledgeable of the environment encompassing a practice class, those most interested in technology, those most concerned for client services, those who deal with the frustrations of administration. They need not all be part of the same planning team. There is no rule that says a firm must have only one planning team. It is in the leader’s interest to have organization-wide participation.  We own what we build ourselves, and by involving a cross section of the firm (if not all of the firm) in the process, you develop team-wide ownership of the plan.

Developing assumptions is a serious business that involves assessing the current environment in which the law firm must operate and then identifying how that environment will be different in the next three to five years.  The consensus process' best role involves the following segments of a law firm’s structured planning processfont>

Identifying the current environment in which the firm operates considering the following aspects:

·        Economics

·        Labor force

·        Technology

·        Competition

·        Courts

·        Governmental impacts

·        Professional and ethical rules of conduct

·        Nature of market and trends

·        Pricing constraints

·        Buying methods of prospects

Identifying the firm’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats:

·        Our strengths

·        Our weaknesses

·        Our threats

·        Our best opportunities

o       New products to existing clients

o       Same products to new markets

o       New products to new markets

o       Performance (improve performance compared to benchmarks)

o       New delivery methods

o       Etc.

Agreeing on the current planning assumptions regarding the future:

·        Economics

·        Labor force

·        Technology

·        Competition

·        Courts

·        Governmental impacts

·        Professional and ethical rules of conduct

·        Nature of market and trends

·        Pricing constraints

·        Buying methods of prospects

 

What is an effective structure process of consensus building? Suppose I have a planning group of 12 key team members and we are tackling the questions about the future issues involving professional talent—i.e., labor force issues.  What assumptions can the firm make about the availability of talent, the competition for it, what candidates will be looking for, what skills candidates will lack when they walk in the door and any other aspect of the talent market that the firm must consider for the future?  I would ask each planning member to list the most important aspects of talent that the firm should consider when planning for the next three years.  Then I would ask them to rank the items on their list from one to five—one being the best and/or most important.  I would then start around the room asking the first person for their No. 1 item.  I would list it on a flipchart.  I would then go to the next person and ask for his/her No. 1 item.  If it had already been listed, I would ask for his/her No. 2 item, etc.  Each participant can give me only one item at a time.  I would continue around the room until every member’s top five items were listed.  As a result of this process, we might have 12 to 15 items listed.  Interestingly enough, almost every member will have at least two to three items in common with the rest of the group.  At that point, I would ask the group to individually rank the items on the new combined list of items.  I would ask them to draw a line below their top third or fourth item.  I would go around the room again asking each to identify their top items.  We would tally up those items mentioned most often to create a “main things” list of three to five items.

 

Anyone who disagreed with the items in our new “main things” list would be given an opportunity to present their case.  Usually there is very little disagreement at this point.  Once the best ideas are identified, we would move on to develop the strategies, tactics, resources, programs, responsibilities and schedule for achieving the main things.

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 Planning by Tom Collins

February 27, 2006

Associate Salary in Mid-sized Law Firms

11:34 am

A few days ago I posted an example of an overly worded rate increase letter mailed to clients of a mid-sized law firm. Following that post, I received an e-mail from one of my associates. She had asked two different if they were affected by the recent wave of associate compensation increases in mega firms. One said, "Yes, we have already increased pay.” The other said, "What increases are you talking about?"

These events illustrate the mixed response of mid-sized to mega firm actions and, particularly, to the issue of associate salaries. Even if there is little immediate connection for most mid-sized with their distant mega firm cousins, sooner or later their actions trickle down. Certainly not dollar for dollar, but they clearly set a directional trend.

Given the continuing rise in Associate compensation ($75,000 to $145,000 depending on firm size and location), it is now more important than ever to set targets and in order to ensure that the firm’s investment will generate a profitable return.

Tax laws discourage accumulation of capital in . All the talk of balanced life aside, have to fund operations from current performance. Associates have to pay their way. That means setting targets for revenue production and holding new additions accountable.

Speaking of targets, if you haven't yet participated in the Law Firm Business Survey for the 2005 year, be sure to do so. By doing so, you will receive a copy of . Those results include the performance benchmarks against which you can compare your own firm's results. When you know what others are doing, you know where you can make changes to increase per-partner income in your own firm.

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 Compensation, HR by Tom Collins

February 17, 2006

Law Firm Business Survey

11:28 am

Last year's survey of Law Firm conducted jointly with Managing and , Inc. identified three key challenges that face in achieving their growth objectives. and recommendations based on the survey were reported in the August and September 2005 issues of Managing Partner Advocate,. For printed copies of those back issues or to subscribe to the free Managing Partner Advocate, e-mail your request to morepartnerincome@juris.com with your name, title, and the firm’s name and address. Now the 2006 Law Firm Business Survey (for the year ended 2005) is underway. There are two ways you can participate:

  1. You can complete the survey manually by filling out the survey form and then mailing it to Managing , , Inc., 5106 Maryland Way, Brentwood TN 37027 or faxing it to (615) 377-3230.
  2. You can complete the online survey questionnaire. When completing the survey online, it may be easier to first print the manual survey form and gather the survey information, then complete the online survey questionnaire.

Why should you participate? The confidential survey takes a little research on the part of your staff for some of the numbers, but the payback makes it worth the effort. Consider the valuable items you will receive as a survey participant:

 

· The completed with analysis and commentary.

· Your firm’s key performance compared to .

· An Excel® spreadsheet that you can use to analyze the results of “what-if” questions.

· Information about ® Managing Partner Forums, where partners from non-competing firms can share ideas and best practices.

· For those who complete their survey online, a money green “More Partner Income” hat for that next firm retreat.

Don’t miss this chance for valuable that can increase per-partner income for your firm. Print out the survey form and get your staff working on the answers today! The information you provide in the Law Firm Business Survey is held in confidence. The survey data is reported only in aggregate form or in a manner that does not identify information about any individual law firm.

 

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

Page 1 of 212»