Category Archives: Firm Finances

Planning for Success – Key Issues & Goals

Posted on by
1

Originally posted on Small Firm Innovation

In the first planning installment, we talked about creating a vision and core values statement. The next step is to identify the firm goals and key issues facing the firm.

One suggestion for getting buy-in from the partners is to have them write down the top 3 goals for their practice and for the firm, as well as the things that are stopping them from achieving their personal and firm goals (the key issues).  Submit these for compilation and discussion at a planning retreat.  This will also start the process of aligning personal and firm goals.

At the planning retreat, list all the goals and issues on flipchart paper and post them for all partners to review as the day proceeds.  Then start discussing the issues one by one until you have exhausted all issues.

I’ve found the process is usually more successful if you start by discussing the issues first and the goals after.  Lawyers are naturally focused on what’s wrong with the firm rather than the positives, so I find this approach simplifies and speeds up the discussion considerably as a result.

Once all of the issues have been discussed, then you can start prioritizing the issues.  Aim to have the top 5 issues decided on by the day’s end.  This part of the process can proceed quite quickly if you’ve already had a thorough discussion of the issues beforehand.

Once you have a prioritized list of the top 5 issues facing the firm, you can now start to turn those issues into quantifiable goals.  For example, if one of the issues is “lack of profitability”, then the goal can be converted to “increase profits by x% over x years”.  This is a quantifiable goal with a deadline, which is essential for follow-through and measuring the success of the firm plan later on.

Review the list of goals submitted prior to the retreat, and add or modify to this list based on the discussion of the key issues.  Decide on the top 5 goals as a group.

Once you have decided on the top 5 goals, then you need to determine if completing these goals will be enough to achieve your vision.  If not, you will have to repeat the process until you come up with an adequate set of goals which will achieve your firm vision.

In the first installment we talked about determining where you’re at today and your vision of where you want to be in 5 years.  The difference between these two points is known as the “planning gap.”  The strategic plan will include all of the steps required to get you from where you’re at today to achieving your vision.  The strategic plan will normally cover a 3 to 5 year time frame.

This completes the goal-setting phase.  Now we can start thinking about the strategies and action plans needed to complete the firm plan.  We’ll discuss this phase in the next planning installment.

Trends In Restructuring Law Firm Business Functions To Increase Profitability

Posted on by
1

I’ve often wondered why so many law firms insist on keeping business functions run inhouse by lawyers, when they’d be much better off delegating or outsourcing (levering) these functions to someone who knows more about business management than they do.  This behavior can range from the Managing Partner who insists on doing the financial statements himself to the numerous lawyer-run Committees you see operating in many firms.   Many firms would get much better and faster results by having an experienced Executive Director or Administrator perform these functions for them.

Some will say that lawyers won’t listen to someone who isn’t a lawyer regarding management issues.  However, many lawyers are now realizing that they need to streamline their operations further as clients push them on the rates side and squeeze their profit margins further.  I would suggest that more lawyers need to become aware of the option to outsource these functions as well,  given the increasing demands from clients to keep costs down and provide better and faster service.  It also recognizes the need for law firms to focus on their core competency of providing legal services.

One of the main reasons to consider levering business functions is to increase profitability.  This requires that you focus on how leverage of business functions can operate in your firm to release your fee earners from administrative tasks.  Your opportunity costs can be great if you have several partners involved in management and administration functions, when they could instead be doing more productive things with their time.  Things such as getting new, highly profitable work, working on high-end files or performing high level R & D to add value to the firm’s knowledge banks and improve firm profitability.  At $400 to $1,000 per hour opportunity cost, you’d be far better off levering those admin tasks to an experienced COO or Executive Director who could do the job more effectively and efficiently.  Your “real” bottom line will grow substantially after allowing for these recovered opportunity costs .

In a recent survey I conducted with COO’s and Executive Directors of midsize and large US and Canadian law firms, I found that more firms are also looking seriously at outsourcing facilities management, document production,  systems, human resources and marketing functions.  Whole administrative departments are not only being outsourced, but are also being shared with other midsize firms.  This tactic allows midsize firms to compete for much larger files than they’d normally have  a chance at and both firms can benefit from the arrangement.  It’s just another way for firms to extend their reach to be competitive without having to merge or add extra offices, and avoid all the costs and potential heartaches that an ill-thought out merger can entail.

Orrick is an example of a firm that successfully “outsourced” all of their administrative support functions such as HR, marketing, systems, facilities management and document production to a single support center office in West Virginia.  Their global network of offices can access the admin services they need from this Global Operations Center on a 24/7/365 basis.  Through this change, Orrick has reduced administrative costs while improving the quality of these support services.

CMS Cameron McKenna in the UK is the first major law firm to outsource its entire business support function to an outside party, including IT, HR, finance, business development, communications, knowledge management, facilities management and administration services.  This is a major development/experiment and is being watched with great interest by many other firms.

Another administrative service to consider for outsourcing is the search function, such as due diligence, title search, etc.  Why firms have their paralegals do these functions is curious to me.  Paralegals should be focused on higher end legal file functions, and searches should ideally be delegated to clerical staff or outsourced to a dedicated search firm.

Another option for small and midsize firms is to outsource all of their administrative functions to companies like MCG Management Counsel Group in Toronto or Cameron Management Services Group in Calgary (no relation).  These companies can handle all of your administrative and business functions so you can focus on practising law.  I’ve heard this option works very well for some small and midsize firms.

The latest option for outsourcing administrative functions is Face2Face Solicitors in the UK, which provides franchisee solicitor firms with centralized back-office systems – including accounts, IT and regulatory compliance – and central marketing and business development, to enable lawyers to focus on the legal work.  See here for more info.

Outsourcing can done at many levels in law firms and is being experimented with in different ways by forward-thinking firms.  You can theoretically outsource any business function.  One partner I knew once jokingly suggested that he’d like to see his firm’s entire Management Committee outsourced.  Okay, that’s pushing the outsourcing concept a bit, but considering the minutiae that many Management Committees get involved with, perhaps it’s not such a farfetched idea!

Related articles

The Link Between Knowledge Management and Profitability

Posted on by
Reply

Did you know there is a direct link between Knowledge Management (KM) and Profitability for law firms?  In addition, did you know that this link exists right at the top of the profit pyramid, where the impact on profitability is the greatest?  I’ve heard this link mentioned before, but haven’t heard the reasoning behind it.  Here are my thoughts on this very important concept.

So, what is behind the link between Knowledge Management and Profitability?

First, it’s generally recognized that increasing Rates can have the biggest impact on profitability.  As David Maister states in his book “Managing the Professional Service Firm“, you can increase rates through specialization, innovation and adding value. The use of properly developed KM systems can significantly increase rates in all three of these areas.

KM systems organize the information that lawyers need to develop and maintain their specialty practice areas.   KM systems also allow lawyers to innovate the way they  provide legal services to clients. Finally, KM systems add value to legal services delivered to clients.    See here for further information from KM experts such as Ann Bjork of Virtual Intelligence VQ in an article from KIM Legal magazine.

I’ve always believed that the use of KM systems has the potential to make law firms extremely profitable.  For example, the reuse of past legal work product can dramatically cut the cost of legal services and allow law firms to recover the true value of the legal knowledge they are imparting to clients.  This is done by value billing without regard to the number of hours being spent on the legal task at the time.   It’s not unethical to value bill for KM if you let the client know what you’re doing up front and give them the chance to “buy in” to a new way to dramatically reduce their overall legal spend.  At the same time, this allows law firms to expand their own profit margins by increasing effective rates dramatically.  It truly is a win-win situation for the law firm and the clients who embrace this way of doing things.

KM provides clients with exactly what they want – lower overall legal costs – while allowing law firms to increase effective rates on the legal products and services they are providing to clients.  KM allows law firms to turn legal knowledge databases into products that can reused over and over.  This allows law firms to invest for the future like other businesses, and not just build fiefdoms of partners who are only in the enterprise for their own gain.   This is where most KM initiatives usually fail, as many partners can’t get past the short-term impact to their numbers by compensation systems which are driven by short-term results at many law firms.  It takes some work to convince partners that the KM initiative will truly benefit them in the long run.  Forward-thinking Managing Partners and Compensation Committees will take into account these long-term investments of legal knowledge by partners who contribute to the development of great KM systems.  Firms can start small and simply bonus partners who provide significant contributions to the KM initiative.  See the article from KIM Legal article magazine noted above for further ideas on how to approach the KM contribution/compensation issue.

KM contributes significantly to greatly increased profitability in law firms by driving and supporting higher Rates, which is the factor that has the biggest impact on law firm profits.  I believe that once law firms truly understand this, you’ll see many law firms revisiting the KM concept.  In combination with the drive for alternative billing models which clients are clamoring for today, law firms should be able to utilize KM to help clients reduce their overall legal costs while driving their own profits higher.  In this way KM truly can be “the missing link” you’ve been searching for to dramatically increase law firm profits.

Related articles