Make More Rain : productivity, margin

Cash Flow An Important Metric For Law Firms

Admin — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 07:00:03 GMT

No matter how much you work, until you convert it to cash it is worthless. The average days in the law firm cash flow cycle (from worked to collected) is 169 (source: 2007 Law Firm Economic Survey from LexisNexis). Shortening your cash flow cycle has a positive impact to liquidity and thus your cash flow cycle should be measured.

There are two metrics that need to be measured: days to bill and days to collect. Determining these numbers on a timekeeper level identifies those timekeepers who are efficient and those who aren't. The opportunity then is to set a standard and work towards compliance by all timekeepers.

What is this standard? It depends on the area of practice. Many insurance companies just won't pay under 60 days of accepted electronic invoice and will only accept these invoices quarterly. In this case, 150 days isn't so bad. Some areas of law (many domestic relations situations come to mind) should, by default, be prepaid. Any work in process should be billed immediately and applied against the prepayments. In these cases a cash flow cycle of 60 days should be cause for concern.

Tools such as Juris from LexisNexis' Active Information can help you track this key performance indicator so that you can improve your liquidity.

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 Law Firms Can Increase Income By $100k Per Partner In 1 Year

Admin — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 08:00:13 GMT

Measurement improves performance. If you measure the following 5 key performance indicators, your profits per equity partner will increase. These drivers are:

Leverage
Rate
Realization
Productivity
Margin

Leverage in the above model is based on head count leverage. Head count leverage is the ratio of equity partners to non-equity fee earners.

Rate in the above model is based on the effective billable rate for all fee earners. You get this by adding all fee earner rates and dividing the sum by the number of fee earners.

Realization in the above model is based on the amount of fees billed against what was worked. You get this from dividing the sum of all fee earner hours billed by the sum of all fee earner hours worked.

Productivity in the above model is the sum of all fee earner billable hours divided by the total number of fee earners.

Margin is net income divided by total fee revenue.

Here is the scenario. Your firm has 29 fee earners. Eleven equity partners, eleven associates/non-equity partners/of counsel, and seven paralegals. You have a total of 50 employees including equity partners. Your effective billing rate is $275, your average fee earner productivity is 1,690 per year, your firm writes down or discounts an average of 10% of work performed (90% realization) and your cost per head is $140,903.

Based on the above, profits per equity partner would be $462,255.

Now, let's play with the numbers. First, we'll look at rate. If we increase rate by 6.5% (which was the average rate increase predicted by respondents of the 2007 Law Firm Economic Survey by LexisNexis), factor in cost inflation (currently around 4.25%), total PEPP increases to $486,314, an change of $24,059.

Factoring inflation, the increase in income is not substantial. However, it underlies the importance of increasing rates annually to avoid devaluing your rate due to inflation. The secret to beating inflation, though, isn't rate; It is productivity. High productivity creates the gap (margin) between cost (which includes inflation) and revenue. The higher your margin, the less inflation hurts you. The lower your margin, the more inflation works against you.

So let's consider productivity. If you increase billable production by 100 hours per fee earner per year (a meager 24 minutes per day based on a 50 week year), PEPP increases to $527,505, a change of $65,250 per partner!

This is one way to make a substantial increase in income with very little change in your workload. In fact, you can likely make up the 24 minutes per day by just entering your time as you are doing the work. Tools such as MyJuris Mobility take advantage of mobile devices such as Blackberry devices to recover nearly an hour per day of productive time.

Finally, we'll consider leverage. If you add two non-equity fee earners (assuming you have the business to necessitate such growth), PEPP increases to $512,686; a change of $50,431 per partner.

Best performing firms, however, do well in several indicators. If you were to combine the above, the results would be striking. If you increased rate 6.5%, added 24 minutes a day to each fee earner's billable goal, and added two associates, you would increase income from $462,255 to $609,677, a change of $147,422 per partner. The effect of compounding factors works to increase the effect of each indicator on income more than you would by increasing any of the indicators alone.

Even if you only increased rate and productivity, you would increase PEPP by $90,733. Click here to download a sample spreadsheet (you must be registered to this site to access the downloads page) and work the numbers yourself. Use it to forecast your increases and measure your performance to reach your financial goals.

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.

Georgia Proposes Flat Rates For Representing Indigents In Capital Cases

Admin — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 08:00:25 GMT

Legislation has been introduced in Georgia to provide more cost accountability to state-funded defense of capital cases. What has caused the uproar?

In March of 2005, Brian Nichols was awaiting trial for rape in Fulton County, Ga. While changing clothes to prepare for his court appearance, Nichols overpowered a deputy, walked into Judge Rowland Barne's courtroom through the judge's chambers and shot both Judge Barnes and a court reporter. During his escape, he injured several and killed two others. The manhunt that ensured culminated in an unlikely ending: Nichols in the apartment of a drug user who was soul-searching and through an 11 hour conversation softened Nichols enough to let her leave. She called 911 and Nichols eventually surrendered without further violence.

Since then, Georgia has seen one of the longest murder trials in state history take place. Since Nichols qualifies as an indigent under Georgia law, the taxpayers are footing the bill for his defense. The Atlanta Journal Constitution reported that the cost of the trial has exceeded $2 million in defense costs alone. That has outraged the Georgia Legislature enough to change the law regarding representation of indigents in capital cases. According to the AJC:

The bill . . . could reduce the financial burden on the Georgia Public Defender Standards Council, which oversees the statewide indigent defense system. Under the bill, the council would pay for the first $150,000 paid to private lawyers defending an indigent capital case and 75 percent of the next $100,000, with the county paying the other 25 percent. Beyond $250,000, the state and the county would split defense costs.

Here's the kicker: The measure recommends that the council set contracts with flat rates for attorneys' fees and expenses in death cases. Sound like a good idea?

Perhaps if defending capital cases were akin to filing Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. However, for private sector attorneys who represent indigents in capital cases, does it remove the incentive to take on these difficult matters? Would a criminal defense attorney zealously defend a suspect for a flat rate for both fees and expenses when you have Judges saying things such as"[e]veryone in the world knows he did it" (as the New York Times reported Judge Fuller said before having to recuse himself from the case)?

Is Georgia trying to limit the representation of indigents in capital cases? Or are they only limiting the financial incentive to defend them? If it is the latter, then ostensibly an attorney may lose the zeal to defend a client once the money runs out - unless they believe that the defendant is innocent. And that might be the point of the legislation. [poll=8]

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.

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.

A Warning For Law Firms (And Business Clients) Using Facebook

Admin — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:00:41 GMT

There has been some discussion in legal blogs regarding the use of social networking tools such as Facebook as a marketing tool. Kevin O'Keefe notes the potential of Facebook as a growing force for lawyers and businesspeople. Larry Bodine writes [w]hy lawyers can't ignore Facebook for networking.

The Birmingham Post (UK) writes of a reason why there should be caution in using Facebook. In an article titled Facebook May Blow Up In Your Face, several potential "minefields" are noted:

Facebook is for personal use only: In its terms and conditions, it states in the first sentence under User Conduct:

"You understand that except for advertising programs offered by us on the Site (e.g., Facebook Flyers, Facebook Marketplace), the Service and the Site are available for your personal, non-commercial use only."

In the terms and conditions, every user agrees not to register for more than one user account, not to register a user account on behalf of another, or register a user account on behalf of any group or entity.
You can be banned from Facebook for a violation of terms, subject to "final and binding arbitration" under Delaware law, likely in California.
Facebook has a license to do whatever it wants with content you provide. In theory, you could upload a photograph and Facebook could sell it without you receiving a penny. If you write lengthy notes about business related issues, these could be turned into a book by Facebook for its gain, not yours. Relevant wording from terms and conditions:

"By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose, commercial, advertising, or otherwise, on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing."

Bodine cites Joshua Fruchter, in a more recent post, citing methods of using Facebook as a marketing tool. Particularly in regard to posting copyrighted content, this should be re-assessed.

Bodine and O'Keefe promote Facebook as a networking tool. Facebook does have a section for businesses called Facebook Pages that serves this purpose. However, there is no pre-screening process to ensure that the entity is in fact who it states it is (read: Wikipedia-ish). There is an additional terms and conditions (which incorporates the original terms) that doesn't negate any of the above concerns (apart from allowing commercial use). If you plan to utilize this tool, make sure you follow the guidelines of Facebook's terms and conditions. [poll=7]

Lawyer Professionalism Tied To Value Billing?

Admin — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 08:00:01 GMT

It's not that I am against value billing. I am just against the proposition that the hourly billing model is an inherent source of evil. When reading Ed Poll's post on Professionalism versus Competence, a sentence caught my eye that appears to be another slam against the billable hour.

The post is about a recent USA Today poll asking whether co-worker's rude or unprofessional behavior should be tolerated if they otherwise do a good job. Thankfully the answer was overwhelmingly no. No one wants to work with rude people.

Poll notes the new firm Patrick Lamb co-founded this year that focuses on value billing. There is much positive press when law firms move to this model so the marketing upside is a good thing. But then came this:

As more lawyers succeed in this business model, perhaps others will follow. Then, perhaps, will civility in the profession be achieved.

Am I to conclude that without this business model (value billing), civility can't be achieved in the legal profession? First, I don't want to mistake Poll's point: that providing value to clients and a team mentality within the firm adds civility to the profession. Agreed. However, how is this at odds with hourly billing? Is it because some (and unfortunately many) are sloppy in their billing process? Or worse, unfairly padding their hours?

Assuming this is a widespread problem, does value billing fix it? Maybe, but not by its presence alone. If you sell services at a fixed fee, you had better know the price of your services or you won't be in business long. Tom Kane explains in a recent post the importance of tracking time even if you bill at a fixed fee.

Understanding that in all but a few routine transactions there are variations in the time it takes to provide a service depending on the variables surrounding the case, you will need to account for differences in the price of particular tasks. So while on the surface everyone may be paying the same for a service, some will be paying more for a task while others pay less. It depends on how difficult the task is and how efficient the attorney.

In fact, if anything, value billing helps budgeting for lawyers since you can set goals on how many tasks you sell clients. Crafty firms can then weed out the difficult cases through case assessment to maximize profit. Finally, marketing efforts can sway those who would buy into the "value" concept unaware of the higher price they are paying for a simple legal task.

Am I saying this is how firms who "value bill" operate? No. Can they operate this way? Yes. Is that a better value to clients? No. And to answer the presumptive rebuttal, "with value-billing, if the client doesn't like the fee, we will adjust it for them" I would answer, "and how is this different from hourly billing?" I've yet to meet a lawyer that is unfamiliar with post-bill adjustments. Some attorneys have a chronic habit of reducing their fees prior to billing as well. The biggest attraction to the value billing model isn't the savings to clients (marketing notwithstanding), it's the potential for higher revenues for well-managed law firms who price margin into the fee. The value of value billing to the client is nothing more than trading actual cost for pre-performance cost certainty - that apparently can still be negotiated after the service is provided (at least when firms open the door for negotiating fees after performance).

Once again, it comes down to trust. If there is a trusted relationship between attorney and client, then attorneys shouldn't overbill their clients and clients shouldn't question attorneys' fees (after-the-fact) - regardless of the method. As Poll states in an earlier post, "there is a very small percentage of 'bad apples' in the legal profession." The devil isn't in the billable hour. It's in those bad apples.

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.

Law Firm Business Model: Margin

Admin — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 08:00:31 GMT

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.