Make More Rain : pricing

Mastering the Basics of Alternative Fee Arrangements

MichelleStPierre — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 17:54:00 GMT

Rising client demand for alternative fee arrangements (AFAs) has forced an increasing number of law firms to move away from the hourly billing model. My colleague Norm Mullock, founder of Redwood Analytics and vice president of product strategy and innovation...(read more)

Around the Web - Business Intelligence

MichelleStPierre — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:57:00 GMT

Redwood's BI solution was recently mentioned in an article on Silicon.com called " Five things CFOs must do in IT after recession ." Mike Giles, financial director at international law firm SJ Berwin, a proficient user of Redwood's BI...(read more)

Bankruptcy Practices at Odds with the "Story of the Year"

BoYancey — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 17:48:00 GMT

Bankruptcy lawyers have been quite busy this past year, and firms have enjoyed exceptionally high billing rates for many pieces of work . This isn't surprising; in the wake of last year's economic crisis, many companies have sought protection...(read more)

Planning Concepts and a Sneak Peek at the LexisNexis Redwood Planning Application

MichelleStPierre — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:45:00 GMT

Planning Overview The LexisNexis Redwood Planning application is a sophisticated management tool that uses a firm's profitability model to look at client planning and alternative choices in the staffing and pricing of new matters as well as the consequences...(read more)

Opportunities Abound with Alternative Fee Arrangements

DerekSchutz — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 13:00:00 GMT

We've heard from a lot of clients recently on the subject of collections and cash flow. It seems like everyone is talking about it, probably because they are concerned that they are going to be caught on the wrong side of the equation. Having a fair amount of insight into the financial statistics of more then a few law firms, I have to say that I definitely understand why law firms are nervous. I, and others, have written numerous articles on the dangers of aging inventory and the issues of poor cash flow management. In my job as a consultant I have advised clients with these problems in their firms' business models. That part is easy. The part that is much harder is coming up with viable solutions. Telling law firms to simply bill and collect faster is, well, too simple. Sure a firm can more often then not send bills out the door faster, but how do you improve the pace of collections?

...(read more)

More Thoughts on Reducing Headcount

MichelleStPierre — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:45:00 GMT

The post yesterday by my colleague Brian exposed some interesting ideas about maintaining profitability. Another one of my colleagues, Bo Yancey, previously published an article in the 2009 LexisNexis Business of Law Insight on a related topic, exploring various 2009 scenarios to "right size" firms in the face of reduced demand and downward pressure on pricing. Bo draws a similar conclusion to Brian's assertions - the four scenarios he addressed in the article show that firms cannot maintain profitability by just reducing associate headcount, and he encourages firms to explore structural leverage.

...(read more)

RFPs: A Necessary Evil

Admin — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 21:58:00 GMT

As we’re all aware, in today’s economic climate there is a big focus on cost reduction. It’s no surprise, then, that RFP’s are being used with even greater frequency by purchasers of legal services. The concept is not new, but the extreme focus on price across a large percentage of those companies probably is. For law firms, this is not a happy consequence. Law firms incur significant expense by simply responding to RFP’s, with no guarantee of work at the end of the process. Of course, a primary reason for companies using RFP’s to begin with is to get the lowest price across all parties—which means that the “winner” of the RFP may not be getting profitable work. In an RFP process, it’s not a guarantee that the lowest price will get the business, but it’s nearly certain that “bidders” with pricing substantially above the lowest prices will be eliminated quickly from consideration.

...(read more)

Alternatives to the Billable Hour

Admin — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 21:30:38 GMT

For years, there has been much talk, and decidedly less action, on “alternatives to the billable hour.” GC’s say they want this, and firms say they are willing to provide these options, but neither side tends to “walk the walk” in a way that matches up with their stated intentions. We think there are a couple of key reasons for this:

1. On the GC side, as much as companies are interested in reducing costs, there is little creativity or interest in crafting “win-win situations.” There is clarity in the billable hour, and with that model, less concern that firms will be leaving money on the table that ends up in law firms’ pockets.

2. On the law firm side, firms quite simply have trouble managing to a fixed price or blended rate. It takes people skilled at active management and estimation, which only comes with experience. Firms often always lose money the first few times they try these types of arrangements, making them “gun shy” about doing it again.

The result of the above two issues is that the billable hour continues to dominate, despite its’ being a disincentive to efficiency on the firm side, and an inexact way of predicting legal expenses for clients.

In these less-than-robust economic times, both sides should take a harder look at the pricing models that exist currently for legal services. The most obvious issue, implicit in both of the above-stated problems, is one of trust, which is borne out of relationships and experience. As we all know, trust is a key component in the long-term success of any client/law firm engagement, and especially on one using a pricing model other than the billable hour.

On the law firm side, the more firms can accurately understand the value to the client they are providing for various types of work, the better they can accurately assess the appropriate work effort and the price the company is willing to pay. Over time, the combination of these 2 things can be used to accurately price the work profitably, based on staffing needs and their associated cost.

On the client side, the client has to understand that the law firm is a business too, and requires a margin on its work for it to desire to continue the long-term relationship. The greater the clarity into what the client bottom line is--- whether total cost, expense predictability, outcome, or some combination—the better the firm can be at pricing the work in question.

There are many tools available to law firms (such as Redwood Analytics’ Matter Planning Tool) to help firms price out blended or hourly rates, with multiple scenarios and sensitivities. These are a key piece, from the firm side, of understanding how leverage and pricing affect profitability. However, it is the back-and-forth between the client and firm that ultimately has the biggest impact on alternative pricing arrangements. Firms must understand and respect clients’ priorities and their relative importance regarding legal services, and clients need visibility into firms’ bottom line as well. This give-and-take, and both sides’ commitment to long term success of the relationship, will be what make alternative arrangements succeed. Given rate pressures, clients’ general dissatisfaction with legal services, and a more challenging economic environment, firms would do well to begin to engage their clients in these conversations, if they haven’t already done so.

--Bo Yancey

Bo Yancey is Director of Professional Services for Redwood Analytics/Lexis Nexis.

Client Stages - A new way of looking at a client's life cycle

Admin — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 23:59:00 GMT

Inventory aging buckets are boring. Useful, yes, but still boring. Looking at how unbilled or uncollected hours have been spread over 30 day increments reminds me of learning to count by 2’s. There IS a business need for dissecting Inventory into manageable buckets, but that is for another post. Even before hours start to age, it is important to understand if we are growing the number of hours being worked. It’s simple. Look at this year, look at last year, do the math – better/worse. Right?

At a basic level, yes. However, what if you take the concept of creating Inventory buckets and apply it to the growth in production over time? You would either create another collection of buckets (5%, 10%, etc.) OR you would have an entirely new perspective on the development of your client base.

At Redwood Analytics, we call this Client Stages. These Stages allow us to analyze the client base in ways beyond a simple ranking of hours or growth rates. The basis for the Stages is the growth of the hours worked over the last 12 months (Rolling 12) compared to the 12 months prior (Prior Rolling 12). By using the last 24 months, independent of calendar years, we capture the growth from 2 full business cycles rather than a partial perspective such as year-to –date. Once the growths rates are calculated, the clients are categorized into the following lifecycle stages:

ACTIVE	Work within the last 12 months
New & Renewed	Work within the last 12 months, no work in previous 12 months
Thriving	100% growth in work vs. prior rolling 12 months
Growing	Between 20% and 100% growth in work over prior 12 months
Stable	Between -20% and 20% growth in work from prior 12 months
Declining	Between -50% and -20% growth
At Risk	More than 50% decline

INACTIVE	No work in the last 12 months
Dormant	No work in the last 12 months, but work in previous 12
Lost	No work in last 24 months

Having the client population dissected into these stages allows for much broader analytic review. Now rather than looking at the clients as a total pool, we can analyze them based on their lifecycle stage. Identifying clients who are declining or at risk of going dormant becomes easier and provides you with meaningful, decision-making information very quickly. If you are trying to determine where to spend client development dollars, focusing on strategic clients in some of the underperforming stages is a good place to start.

The more that you can look at your client base from different angles, the more that opportunities will reveal themselves to you. Client stages are just the beginning of a forward looking view at your firm’s health—which in large part is based on its clients. Take some time and consider the value that could be gained from examining clients based on how long they’ve been with the firm; their ranking based on the revenue potential they bring to the table; or perhaps a rating system based on key metrics like realization, production, and cash cycle. Inventory aging buckets are useful from a billing & collections standpoint, but don’t limit yourself to one perspective of your firm’s lifeblood.

--Jonathan Huyard

Jonathan Huyard is a senior consultant with Business of Law Services team for Redwood Analytics/LexisNexis.

RainToday Report: 76% of Law Firms Discount Fees

Admin — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 07:00:32 GMT

Pricing has been a frequent topic at More Partner Income. Some past topics include the science behind pricing, the ill effects of inflation on pricing, pricing management, and discounting.

RainToday has recently released the Fees & Pricing Benchmark Report: Law Firm & Legal Services Industry 2008. David Maister wrote a blog post on a similar report released by RainToday focused on the consulting industry on April 28th. There were some striking similarities between the two reports:

65% of consulting firms reported they discounted fees. 76% of law firms reported discounting fees;
Average discount of responding consulting firms was 11.7%. Average discount of responding law firms was 9.9%.

Of the two pre-bill adjustments (mark downs and discounts), discounting is the most difficult to change. Both show weakness in the firm, but discounting creates a feeling of entitlement from clients. How?

Marking down time tells your client one of several things (the below is not exhaustive):

I spent more time than I can reasonably charge you for the service provided: ie, I am not efficiently working the matter;
My associates spent more time that I can reasonably charge you for the service provided: ie, my firm has less competent attorneys working on your case or I have inefficient staff working on your case;
Even though I spent an adequate amount of time on this, it "seems" too high to me: ie, I am unclear on the value of my service.

All of the above are correctable. They are entry-specific adjustments that can be seen as temporary.

On the other hand, discounts are typically applied to the entire bill. This gives rise to expectations of entitilement. They can tell your clients one very negative thing: I am overcharging you up front and adjusting it on the back-end.

Just as discussed on this site in the post Discounting At Law Firms, the RainToday report suggests that there may be valid reasons to discount, but only when the discount is intentional, strategic, and, ultimately, mutually beneficial to you and your client.

Some reasons to discount given in the report include well-funded start-up clients (in expectation of long-term payoffs) and absorbing the cost of training new associates. It is also something to consider when trying to win RFPs, in exchange for quick payment of invoices or in return for a threshold amount of work that the client will provide to the firm.

The important part of discounting is that it is mutually beneficial to you and your client - there needs to be consideration for the discount. It needs to be binding so that if the client does not perform on their end, the discount doesn't get applied. If there isn't quid pro quo, you are giving a clear message to your client that you overcharge up front - and that your rates are open to negotiation.

Tax Reform Up For Grabs

Admin — Thu, 29 May 2008 07:00:45 GMT

With the tax cuts enabled during the Bush administration coming to an end soon, lobbyists and tax attorneys are lining up to offer their opinions on how the tax code should be reformed.

According to an article in the National Law Journal (Firms Gear Up For Critical Tax Polcy Changes), "[a]bout $4 trillion worth of tax revenue provisions are expiring, the most in the history of the U.S. tax system":

"The next president has some ticking time bombs to address," said Jim Miller, a tax attorney who last month moved to Winston & Strawn's Washington office from Hunton & Williams. "There's now the greatest potential for tax reform certainly since 1986".

How is this important to you? Consider this:

"Tax issues will be the key driver for political and economic activity for the next half-dozen years," Mike T. McNamara (a Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal partner) said. "All of our clients are trying to look at how tax policy will drive or hinder their business plans."

It isn't just your clients who need to watch the tax policy. Your firm needs to pay close attention to how tax policy is addressed so that you may draft your own business plan that take the new policies into consideration.

Alan J. Auerbach, Jason Furman, and William G. Gale wrote an essay on possible approaches to tax policy titled Facing the Music: The Fiscal Outlook at the End of the Bush Administration.

The tax foundation has a summary of each of the Presidential Candidates' tax plans that can be accessed by clicking here.

If you want to talk about "perfect storms", consider the effects on your business of expiring tax cuts and a struggling economy. How tax policy is approached in the coming year(s) will be telling on how well our economy rebounds from this (at least so far) minor contraction.

The Science Behind Pricing

Admin — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 07:00:25 GMT

The April 2008 Scientific American contains an article titled Why Things Cost $19.95: What Are The Psychological "Rules" Of Bartering? (hat tip: Matthew Homann, in his blog the [non]billable hour). The article explains the effects that initial pricing has on a potential buyer based on a series of tests. The results found:

people appear to create mental measuring sticks that run in increments away from any opening bid, and the size of the increments depends on the opening bid. That is, if we see a $20 toaster, we might wonder whether it is worth $19 or $18 or $21; we are thinking in round numbers. But if the starting point is $19.95, the mental measuring stick would look different. We might still think it is wrongly priced, but in our minds we are thinking about nickels and dimes instead of dollars, so a fair comeback might be $19.75 or $19.50.

The authors of the tests then looked at five years of real estate sales in Florida to see the difference between the list price of real estate and the actual sales price.

They found that sellers who listed their homes more precisely—say $494,500 as opposed to $500,000—consistently got closer to their asking price. Put another way, buyers were less likely to negotiate the price down as far when they encountered a precise asking price. Furthermore, houses listed in round numbers lost more value if they sat on the market for a couple of months. So, bottom line: one way to deal with a buyer’s market may be to pick an exact list price to begin with.

Homann, in his post on the subject, took it a step further: Why not charge $297 per hour rather than $300 per hour? Then if a client wanted to negotiate, ostensibly the negotiations would be in single dollars rather than tens of dollars.

In the case of firms who are competing with other firms for business, this tactic may work well to secure a deal.

It may not work as well when clients are asking for a discount. Many times when it comes to discounting rates, clients look at percentage discounts of the whole bill rather than dollar discounts. Therefore taking a few dollars off the charge per hour may end up costing you a lot more than anticipated. Where it may work better is in flat fee or value-bill situations, where you are adjusting only the final price of the service.

So, if you have priced a certain task at $1,500, try advertising a price of $1,497.96. On top of making the client look at penny increments, it also makes it look like you have calculated the exact value of the service. Before making wholesale changes to your pricing, try on a specific area that may have a higher average of discounts (or lost potential clients due to pricing) than other areas. Track whether the change in pricing has an effect. If so, please feel free to post your results here.

Discounting At Law Firms

Admin — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 07:00:27 GMT

I received an email from Brendon Carr, foreign legal consultant and host of the Korea Law Blog, regarding a recent post of his, “I Don’t Care What You Charge; Whatever It Is, It’s 15% Too Much”. The post discusses a request from a new client for an across-the-board 15% discount for his services.

In my experience working with law firms, discounting is the most difficult thing to change. Where mark-downs to work performed can be addressed internally, discounting becomes an entitlement to a client. The only ways to recoup the loss in value is to increase rates at a higher percentage than other clients, pad your hours by billing for things you may otherwise not charge to a client, tie the discount to high volume, or tie the discount to fast payment of invoices The first two are not conducive to a positive trust relationship with the client.

In my opinion, discounting should be avoided at almost all costs - the exceptions being:

In return for high volume of business that compensates for the reduced value of your time. There is nothing shameful in requesting from a client who asks for a discount to provide estimates of business it will provide and tying the discount to their ability to provide that level of business. Then you can agree to the discount, but will provide it once the threshold business the client sends you is met.
In return for fast payment of invoices. This encourages fast payment and thus a positive effect on cash flow.

When in a situation such as that of Mr. Carr, several questions come to mind:

Is asking for a discount up front damaging to the relationship between attorney and client?
Does mandatory discounting encourage mark-up of hours?
If it becomes known that your firm discounts, does it create a perception by clients that your firm expects rate negotiation and thus overcharges for its services?

What do you think? Add a comment below to share your thoughts.

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.

How Inflation Deflates A Law Firm's Bottom Line

Admin — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:00:13 GMT

I received an email earlier this week from a reader who corrected an error I made when discussing the effects of inflation within the post How Law Firms Can Increase Income By $100k Per Partner In 1 Year. Rather than re-working the example in the original post(where few would notice it), I decided to dedicate a post to the effects of inflation on your bottom line and clarify the point, which was not in error. Considering the overwhelming negativity flowing through the minds of many regarding our current economy, a discussion on inflation's affect on profitability appears ripe anyway.

During the 1990's inflation increased an average of 3% per year. In fact, many of us have become accustomed to using the standard of 3% when adjusting any cost by the rate of inflation. From 2000-2006, inflation was even a little better, increasing on average of only 2.85% per year.

Source: www.inflationdata.com

In 2007, the average rate of inflation was still only 2.85%. However, in the last 2 months of 2007, a trend began that is continuing this year. From November, 2007 until January, 2008, inflation has exceeded 4%. On March 14, the February inflation percentage will be released. It will be interesting to see if this trend continues [MARCH 14 UPDATE: Core inflation was unchanged in February - news that, while perhaps temporary, opens the door to another interest rate cut by the Federal Reserve.]. Regardless, January's inflation was highest in the month of January since 1991.

Source: www.inflationdata.com

Inflation has actually has been moving up since 2000, except for an interruption after the impact of Hurricane Katrina caused inflation to first spike just after the storm, then drop to under 2% in late 2006. It wasn't until late 2007 that rates returned to the 6 year trend, according to the below chart.

Source: www.inflationdata.com

Whether inflation is going to stay at plus 4% in 2008 remains to be seen, but let's just consider the effect of inflation based on the average from 2000-2007 (2.85%). In the following example, annual revenues are $1 million (for simplicity). To determine the effect of inflation on your bottom line, the scenario I am using utilizes fixed margin percentages of 10%, 11%, 15%, 20%, 30%, 40% and 50%. (Using these percentages alone make business owners of other industries indignant, as many can't imagine pulling margins of 50% - though the best performing law firms in the 2007 Law Firm Economic Survey were doing just that) As well as factoring inflation, I also factor in a 6.5% increase in revenue (based on predicted rate increases from firms in the 2007 Survey). Will this offset inflation?

Not hardly. In fact, at low margins, inflation is deadly. If margin is 10%, even with a rate increase of 6.5%, income purchase power is reduced by 22%. Even at 15% margin, your purchase power is reduced 13%. It is not hard to see how small businesses with low margins struggle to survive even moderate inflation.

With margins up to 40%, you are still losing money when revenue increases 6.5% and inflation is as low as 2.85%. However, at least when margins are 40% you are close to offsetting inflation - so long as revenue increases more than double the rate of inflation.

The above model takes into consideration a rise of expenses that includes both inflation and the revenue increase. The assumption is, as Parkinson's Second Law states, that "expenses rise to meet income". When you increase revenue, it is likely due to an investment, whether that investment is additional staff, timekeepers, technology, pay increases, etc. The numbers above change if you only apply inflation to expenses, but that would assume that you are not investing in the above to increase revenue. One way to accomplish increased revenue without additional cost is through increasing productivity, at least in the short term (for those who increase productivity will soon seek financial reward).

In the above, you can see the drastic difference taking "revenue cost" out of the equation. If you can increase revenue without adding cost, inflation is suddenly no longer a threat - all you must do is keep up with the rate of inflation and inflation is abated. In the above, you actually see a higher percentage increase with lower margin. In any event, income across the board goes up. The above, however, is accurate only in the short-term, as costs inevitably increase with revenue.

What can be concluded from this?

Rate increases must be much higher than the rate of inflation to offset its effects (ie, rate alone isn't a path to increasing income);
The higher your margin, the less inflation affects income;
Higher productivity with higher rates can substantially increase income in the short term and minimize its effects in the long run.

For subscribers of the blog, I have attached a spreadsheet with both formulas for you to use to plug in your own numbers and forecast how inflation will affect your profits in both the short run (if you budget for higher revenue without additional cost - such as increasing productivity) and the long run. To download, click here. If you haven't already subscribed, registration is free. Thanks to Joe Dwyer for his time and thoughts.

Law Firm Pricing Management

Admin — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 08:00:46 GMT

One of the more common questions I hear asked by attorneys is how to set their rates. Many attorneys raise their rates periodically but not as part of a strategy to maintain or increase margin. Pricing management is addressed in detail in an article in Managing Partner Magazine titled Pricing Management. Noting that most firms still use a "reactive" approach to pricing, the article suggests instituting a pricing management function within the firm closely tied to the finance and marketing functions. A systematic approach is recommended that positions pricing with your strategic goals.

According to the article, firms should prioritize consideration of the price it will charge for its services and to ensure that the firm’s value and pricing propositions are constantly reviewed and improved upon, and communicated to clients at all levels of the firm. Firms should manage the pricing function around three levels: industry, practice and engagement level.

Industry Level: invest in understanding how variables drive supply and demand for legal services in your particular industry of practice.
- Systemic drivers: focus on short and long term considerations in the industry affecting client demand.
- Service delivery: leverage your firm's technology and skills as value that sets your firm apart
- Client patterns: how often they are a source of new business, how well they pay, etc.
- Talent supply: look into alternatives in how services can be delivered to be more cost effective.
- Pricing Czar: A finance director or equity partner should be dedicated to reviewing these drivers and organizing a pricing strategy and structure that meets the financial needs of the firm.
Practice Level: understand the markets that your firm and its practices operate.
- Testing client perceptions: client interviews, surveys, etc to better understand client need and provide better value.
- Discriminating among clients: develop rates that fit the client and practice area, not one-size-fits-all.
- Objectively reviewing fee schedule: periodically check market position as well as reputation of key partners by conducting blind study of key clients.
- Central pricing function supporting practice-group leaders: remove discretion in pricing except at practice group level - discounting should be first approved by pricing czar.
Engagement Level: getting the best price for each matter
- Training: partners need to understand the effect even minor discounts have on the bottom line; develop skill in communicating value.
- Tools: having proper tools to measure performance so as to maximize profitability based on comparison of historically similar matters.
- Systems: develop processes to review efficiency and improve on it to better price similar matters in the future.

Though some feel trapped in their pricing scheme, firms can and should plan how they price their services. With a well-conceived and implemented pricing plan, firms can be proactive and systematic in developing a pricing structure aligned with their strategic 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.