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

Practice Management

: More Partner Income

Partner Cost and Client Profitability (Part VI)

By Brian J. Ritchey

ADVERTISEMENTS

This is the last in a 6-part series on partner compensation and client profitability written by Ron Paquette, consultant with Redwood Analytics, now part of LexisNexis. 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 profitability. The second article, titled Partner Cost And Client Profitability, (Part II), is focused on pitfalls of some firms' methodology in allocating costs to partners. The third article, titled Partner Cost And Client Profitability, (Part III), is focused on basing a partner's direct cost on a "minimum margin percentage". The fourth article, titled Partner Cost and Client Profitability (Part IV), is focused on basing a partner's direct cost on a "minimum margin dollar amount". The fifth article, titled Partner Cost and Client Profitability (Part V), is focused on allocating a partner's direct cost using a variation of both the "minimum margin percentage" and "minimum margin dollar amount" based on different partner "ranks" using a sliding scale. This final article compares the different methodologies to help a firm decide which one to utilize in their environment.

Over the past several weeks, I have explored a number of methodologies for determining the appropriate amount of partner compensation to consider direct cost and allocate to clients for purposes of evaluating client and matter profitability. Since a partner is compensated for a multitude of contributions to the firm (billable hours, originations, matter & client management, attorney management & development, and for firm ownership), the issue is complex. Through my last five postings, I have evaluated half a dozen methodologies, all of which are used by at least one firm Redwood has worked with, but not all are recommended.

The first step Redwood took as we set out to answer this question was to determine what we were trying to accomplish with an allocation methodology. From there, we developed a list of five criteria to evaluate each methodology against. As I wrote about in the prior blog entries, the advantages and weaknesses are all based on this list:

Simplicity. If the methodology is not easy to understand with a minimal number of decisions, it will prove difficult to build partner buy-in.
Positive margin. There is value associated with every hour of partner time at standard rates. While discounting may be a planned strategy to acquire a client or matter, at full rates, every hour should have some margin.
Rate based. Compensation can be affected by a large number of factors including discretionary bonuses and overall firm performance in a year (cash received from a litigation case). As a result, it is possible for compensation to decrease from one year to the next. Since we are trying to assign costs to the client for the billable time only, it is important to ignore these effects. Instead, direct costs should be based on partner’s standard rate,
Leverage. While not the only measure, leverage is extremely to increasing firm profitability. Any methodology should (through the resulting margins) encourage the use of lower cost timekeepers over higher cost (and highly compensated) partners.
Closed Compensation system. If this is a concern for your firm, it can generally be accomplished by using a rate-based methodology and leaving out any actual compensation figures.

In our journey through this process, we gathered various approaches from our clients and from industry experts. The list of criteria above is a solid place to begin evaluation to determine if the resulting model is providing the desired outcome. In the figure below, you will see the six methodologies that we evaluated and the degree to which they meet the criteria above (solid circle indicating criteria met, half circle indication partial, and blank indicating criteria not met). As you can see, the three methodologies that we recommend to our clients, Minimum Margin %, Minimum Margin $ and Sliding Scale, meet almost all six of the criteria we have laid out here.

If you use or know of another methodology, we would be interested to hear about it and may be able to provide some guidance on its performance against the list of criteria. Please send an email to rpaquette@redwoodanalytics.com with any suggestions, questions, or additional methodologies that we have not yet seen.