ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Practice Management Blogs -> More Partner Income

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Practice Management

: More Partner Income

Partner Cost And Client Profitability, (Part III)

By Ron Paquette

ADVERTISEMENTS

This is the third in a series on and client written by Ron Paquette, consultant with Redwood Analytics, now part of .  The first article, titled Client Profitability: What Is The Cost Of Partner Time?, was an introduction to the concept of allocating partner cost in calculating client .  The second article, titled Partner Cost And Client Profitability, (Part II), is focused on pitfalls of some firms' methodology in allocating costs to partners.  This article is focused on basing a partner's direct cost on a "minimum margin percentage".

 When it comes to allocating partner direct costs (compensation) to a client the answer, unfortunately, is not a simple one.  After exploring options with various law firm leaders at a number of firms, we heard on one key point — that “it depends.”   “Depends on what?” you might ask. Well, it depends on the current state of affairs of the firm, the long and short term goals of the firm, the relative level of , and maybe most importantly, how the firm thinks about client . As a result, we have developed a handful of options to address the analytic needs while considering firm goals and philosophy. In my next several entries, I’ll explain some of those options, and their pros and cons. Today’s option is basing a partner’s direct cost on a minimum margin percentage for each partner.

Minimum Margin % (or fixed margin % for firms with closed compensation):
In this methodology, (Std Rate less Direct Cost Rate as a % of Std Rate) are kept at or above a minimum threshold (or equal to the threshold for firms with closed compensation cultures). In the example below, we have the same three timekeepers from previous examples, with the Rainmaker and Dept. Manager having compensation that exceeds their revenue. With the minimum margin % methodology, these two timekeepers’ direct costs are set so that the margin % is 40% (this variable is set by the firm) while the Jr. Partner maintains the 44% margin occurring ‘naturally.’

Role
Compensation
Std
Rate*
Cost
Rate*
Direct
Margin
%
Rainmaker
$1MM
$250
($150)
40%
Dept. Manager
$500M
$200
($120)
40%
Jr. Partner
$150M
$150
($83)
44%

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
*Assumes 1800 standard expectation
Advantages of this methodology:
  • It ensures that every partner has a positive margin associated with his/her hours when valued at standard rate. While one may purposely choose to lose money on specific matters through discounting, there should be margin on every hour of time when valued at published rate.
  • It is simple. Firm leaders need only to decide on one variable that can be based on firm analytics and for other titles (e.g. income partners or senior associates).
  • It is based on the partner’s published rate. While total compensation can rise and fall with firm profits, this relative cost will not fluctuate and this method is in line with thinking about compensation for a partner’s work effort.
  • The most highly compensated partners will be forced to the minimum margin ensuring they appear less profitable than junior partners, therefore supporting a leverage model.
There are some weaknesses to this approach:
  • A firm will need to decide on the minimum margin percentage. While strong arguments can be made for a certain threshold, there still may be dissenters. 
  • For those who have the minimum margin %, the only differentiator relative to how they  affect client is the realization on the hours worked. If too many partners are at the minimum, there is virtually no difference in leverage within the partner ranks.
Overall, the strengths of this methodology far outweigh its drawbacks.  With this method, client can be evaluated objectively with minimal explanation about the handling of . In subsequent entries we will be evaluating additional methodologies vetted by Redwood Analytics and providing a checklist of criteria that your firm can use to select a methodology.

Related posts

Full post as published by More Partner Income on May 13, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0128 secs (new cache)