Australian firms

CommBank Legal Market Pulse report – Q3 2014/15

The third quarter (Q3) FY2015 edition of the CommBank Australian Legal Market Pulse Report (Report), with research conducted by Beaton Research + Consulting, has just been published.

As usual, the Report provides useful insights into the latest thinking of Australian law firm managing partners/leadership, as well as the trends and developments impacting on the Australian private practice legal industry sector.

Interesting outtakes from the latest edition of the Report include:

although short-term (next 12 months) economic confidence is fairly dire, the long-term (24 months+) outlook is very positive.
surprisingly, given the lack of confidence in short-term economic conditions, every single top-tier surveyed firm is forecasting higher revenue in the next six months. As Marc Totaro’s introduction covers, top-tier firms expect this [next six months] revenue growth to come from Europe, Asia and Sydney; but this paints a little too rosy a picture to me.
both top-tier (67%) and mid-tier (47%) firms anticipate seeing revenue growth coming from their employment teams.
insurance (60%) related work gets the nod as the expected highest revenue growth area for mid-tier firms. While the Report doesn’t elaborate on whether this is claims related or commercial work, the recent re-jig in the market – with insurance teams moving from the top end of town firms to mid-tier firms – must certainly account for some of this positivity. This is probably also reflected in the fact that top-tier firms surveyed forecast a fall in their insurance practice revenue over the next six months.
excepted revenue growth within taxation (50%) ranked higher than I would have guessed among top-tier firms; but maybe this is more reflective of the time of year (Q3).
one possible hidden indicator in the Report: mid-tier firms seem more optimistic about getting their hands on “construction, engineering and major infrastructure” (50%) work than top-tier firms – who don’t rank this area in their top 3 revenue growth practices. On the flip-side, clearly the recent M&A work in “IT, telecoms and media” (think 9 Network and iiNet) has been going to the top-end of town with 67% of top-tier firms expecting this practice area to be one of their highest growth areas.
top-tier firms forecast revenue growth in UK/Europe, Asia, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne and Sydney, but revenue in both Adelaide and Perth are predicted to contract.

The Report also provides forecasts on expected realisation rates (and if you thought these couldn’t possibly get any worse, think again), expenses* and outsourcing.

But, saving the best to last, probably the biggest shock the Report contains is the forecasted change in staffing; and, in particular, the bloodbath that is anticipated to take place within the partnership ranks of top-tier firms. And to be clear, a 33% and 67% forecasted decline in net proportion of equity and salaried partners respectively can only be described as a “bloodbath”!

As usual, I suggest you download and read the Report – it’ll make for an interesting weekend read.

* on a personal note, I see there is a forecasted 17% reduction in “Marketing and Business Development” expense by top-tier firms in the next six months. I can only hope that doesn’t come about.

The two types of efficiencies law firm associates need to become familiar with…

Really interesting article [‘What Associates Should Know About In-House Rates and Efficiencies‘] by Gina F. Rubel was published overnight (7 April 2015) on The Legal Intelligencer website – discussing the two types of efficiencies that law firm associates should become familiar with – contains a gem of a quote from an in-house general counsel that I wanted to share/pass on.

First, to put some context around the quote below by Gino Benedetti, as Rubel states:

“There are two types of efficiencies with which lawyers need to be familiar. The first is general efficiency, which is the state or quality of being efficient and the actions designed to achieve optimal results. The second is economic efficiency, which requires optimal production and distribution of a firm’s resources.”

And while both are extremely important to in-house counsel, the following quote in the article by Gino Benedetti, General Counsel of SEPTA, should give some indication to private practice law firm associates which of the two bears more commercial importance to their in-house clients:

“Associates should understand that every case does not require a full-court press,” said Gino Benedetti, general counsel of SEPTA. “Associates add value when they think creatively by identifying the core issue in dispute and focus their case work on things that impact that issue. Often, associates work on an aspect of the case that does not have any meaningful impact on the ultimate outcome. So, associates should appreciate that their time may be less expensive, but that does not justify inefficiency. Associates should communicate often with the partner or the client directly so that the client’s objective is understood and the work is driven by that objective.”

If you haven’t already, I’d like to suggest you go over and read the entire article. It’s full of sage advice from several in-house GCs.

In the meantime, if you are a private practice law firm associate, the next time your supervising partner asks you to undertake a task on behalf of your client why not ask yourself which type of the two types of efficiency you are going to bring to the task…?

Q2 2014/15 CommBank Legal Market Pulse report

The CommBank Legal Market Pulse report for Quarter 2 2014/15, conducted by Beaton Research + Consulting, has been published. Providing useful insights into the latest trends and developments impacting on the Australian legal industry, this report has rapidly cemented itself as a staple among serious legal business developers in Australia.

Interesting outtakes from the latest report include:

unsurprisingly, given the continuing political uncertainty and falling commodity prices, many law firm leader believe there may well be a downturn in the broader economy over the next 12 months.
one in three firms are looking to expand geographically by opening new offices, with an emphasis on Perth, Brisbane and Canberra being the locations of choice. This is an interesting development as it had been the stated strategy of many firms in Australia for a long time not to expand outside of their geographic stronghold base. For example, for a long time HDY were only ever going to be a Sydney firm serving national clients. Now they have an office in Brisbane. Likewise for G&T (new offices in Melbourne and Perth). What I would be interested to find out though is how much of this expansion is self-driven and how much of it is been driven by major clients looking to rationalise the number of law firms they use? If that question was asked, I suspect we may find that this trend is more client-driven than firm-driven.
Asia at 89%, UK/EU at 67% and Brisbane at 52% are seen as being the geographic areas with the highest revenue growth expectations. Sorry but I find this nothing short of astonishing. Have any of these respondent law firms looked at how crowded the Brisbane and Asian legal markets are? And wasn’t it only a few months ago that PwC were reporting that return on equity for Asian law practices was the lowest globally (at somewhere in the 20% range). [that said, Clifford Chance did recently announce a desire to increase revenue in Asia by 25%]
expected changes in realised rates is a 1% (+) increase. Pathetic! Might I suggest the firms concerned consider not increasing their rates by 5-10% this year and instead concentrate on trying to get more than 80c in the $ in realised billing rates.
negotiating price with clients, at 81%, is seen as the biggest business challenge facing law firms. Here, I would hazard a guess that negotiating the price we want from our clients is probably the real business challenge as it would seem that price negotiations in law firms is a one way conversation at the moment.
the practice area with the highest revenue growth expectations is Government (at 55%). With the announced forthcoming closure of the Australian Government Solicitor potentially putting up for grabs around $111.3 million in revenue for private practice law firms, perceived growth in this sector shouldn’t be too surprising. What does remain to be seen is how much of this pie firms other than Clayton Utz (at 11% for 2013-14) can get their hands on.
54% of law firms surveyed believe revenue from “non-legal services” will increase over the next 2 years. While I was unable to find a definition of “non-legal services”, the relatively low (at 54%) number of law firm leaders who saw growth in revenue in this area does surprise me. This is especially so if services such as the recently launched Orbit by Corrs Chambers Westgarth is seeing as constituting “non legal services” (in that it is not core legal advisory work).
and finally, 70% of law firms see “recruiting partners and staff from competitors in the new location” as being the most likely method of geographic expansion, while only 30% saw this geographic expansion occurring as a result of a “merger with an existing firm” – so be on the lookout for 2015 being a very business year for lateral hires!

If you haven’t already done so, can I suggest you download a copy of the report. It really is an interest read.

Network ASEAN: Are you plugged in?

I read with interest a commentary post yesterday (although the post itself was made on 7 February) by Reid Kirchenbauer (on the www.investasian.com website) that outlines some of the economic developments that had occurred in the forty years since The Association of Southeast Nations (ASEAN) and Australia had developed diplomatic relations – ‘Understanding Australia-ASEAN Trade’.

Some of the more notable aspects of Reid’s post include:

Southeast Asia (SEA) is currently Australia’s second largest trading partner after China
Bilateral trade between SEA and Australia was valued at US$67.9 billion in 2013

And yet, somewhat troubling, notwithstanding the multi-billion dollar level of trade between ASEAN and Australia, and even though a free trade agreement (FTA) exists between ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand (the AANZFTA signed in 2010), a 2013 survey by the Australian Trade Commission (ATC) found that the majority of companies in Australia were not aware of the ASEAN Economic Community.

I say “somewhat troubling”, but the reality is that the ATC 2013 survey mirrors a recent Acitas survey, whose major findings were that:

45 per cent of multinationals require legal advice in South East Asia;
34 per cent of Australian multinationals’ legal spend now goes outside their home jurisdiction; and
60 per cent of Australian in-house counsel surveyed said they needed legal advice in South East Asia

but that these needs were largely going unmet – “Law firms are failing to support clients in South East Asia” an article by Felicity Nelson posted to the Lawyers Weekly website on the 19 December 2014.

If we leave aside for the moment the comprehensive recent report by The Lawyer Magazine on Southeast Asia Legal Elite (the Executive Summary of which can be read here), it seems indisputable to me that ASEAN represents a massive opportunity for Australian law firms in 2015 and that, sadly, a large part of this opportunity is going to be unmet.

Turning back to Reid’s post though, what realistic opportunities exist for Australian law firms in all this?

Well,

no doubt assisted by the Thailand-Australia FTA (TAFTA), coming into effect in 2010, Thai foreign direct investment (FDI) into Australia has increased by over 20 times since 2007;
with the Australia-Malaysia FTA (MAFTA) coming into effect in 2013, Australia is ranked the third biggest investment destination for Malaysian investors and two-way investment between the nations has doubled since 2010 and now accounts for more than $20 billion; and
in addition to being the oldest FTA between an ASEAN nation and Australia (signed in 2003), according to the most recently published data Singapore is currently the largest foreign investor in Australian real estate, making up 28% of all foreign property investments in Australia.

and that’s just inbound work from ASEAN into Australia, let alone any of outbound work the 60 per cent of surveyed Australian in-house counsel said they needed help with in SEA.

All of which leads me to ask:

is your law firm plugged into a formal or informal network in ASEAN?
if so, do you know what level of inbound referral work you are getting from your ASEAN network partners?
and, do you know what level of outbound referral work you are sending out to the partners in your ASEAN network?

Are the legal press letting the importance of revenue get in the way of a good story?

An interesting news item appeared on the Global Legal Post website overnight (Australian time). Citing a recently published (January 2015) Legal Services Market Research Report by IBIS World, the Global Legal Post item, which is titled “Australian firms on the hunt for increased revenues” states that:

Pressure on revenues is forcing Australian firms to look overseas in a bid to increase turnover.

First of all, if I’m allowed to say, this is irony in action!

Given the number of international (mostly British) law firms that have entered the Australian legal market in the past five or so years as a result of perceived or real limitations on growth in their own domestic markets, to now be informed that one of the consequence of this action is that Australian firms now need to look overseas to grow their own revenue is, well, ironic.

More importantly – aside from being wrong as the IBIS Report clearly states that the market in Australia is growing (if admittedly at a snail’s pace) – is that it misses a crucial point; namely, increasing turnover for turnover’s sake is nothing short of a wasted effort!

But don’t take my word for it, as the prominent industry strategist and pricing expert Richard Burcher rightly points out in his comment to the link I posted to this on LinkedIn last night:

Surely it is bottom line growth that matters? And the assumption that this can only be achieved through top line growth is profoundly flawed. The application of a more sophisticated firm-wide approach to pricing can yield a demonstrable increase in revenue by on average 5% to 8%. For most firms that produces a profitability increase of 15% to 25% with the same clients and the same work. No wonder more than 50% of post merger firms report that it failed to deliver to the bottom line.

Precisely Richard.

Unfortunately, however, this is not the only example of this type of legal press reporting/thinking.

Only the same day (Monday) The Australasian Lawyer reported – citing (wrongly in my opinion) another UK website – that the Australian arm of DLA had been “fingered for [the] law firm’s drop in revenue” as if huge levels of shame needs to be attached to this [revenue drop] given that it

follow[ed] a transition period where underperforming partners in the region [Asia] departed.

Well I happen to know a number of the partners who left DLA last year and one thing I can say with absolutely certainty is that they were anything but underperforming. More accurately, what they were was in practices that were no longer strategically aligned to where DLA sees the future of its business (something I think is made clearer in the UK version of this news). And, in a partnership sense, there is nothing wrong with having conversations like that. Indeed, they are to be encouraged.

So as with the discussion around revenue and profit, the discussions around revenue and strategy, while related are two different issues.

And all of this before we even get into the very real discussion of whether or not one law firm’s growth has to come at the cost of another law firm.

Brief comment on LSG Article – “Australia: extracting value”

The [UK] Law Society Gazette’s published feature this week is an overview of developments in the Australian legal market following the recent entry by ‘northern hemisphere’ firms (Clifford Chance, Linklaters, Norton Rose, Herbert Smith, Bird & Bird, to name a few) by freelance writer Marialuisa Taddia (‘Australia: extracting value’).

While a useful high level overview of the market in Australia, those who live the market day-in, day-out are unlikely to learn anything of significance from the feature.

That said, one comment that did draw my attention, and which I thought was both worthy of sharing with you and commenting on, is by Juan Martinez – Managing Partner of HWL Ebsworth – who is quoted as saying that:

“We [HWL Ebsworth] don’t believe that the overall legal spend within Australia will grow in any material regard in the short to medium term,’

and going on to say:

‘Clients are becoming more cost-oriented, and procurement teams within our clients are becoming much more heavily involved in the selection of law firms. Accordingly, the only way that Australian firms will be able to grow revenues is by increasing their market share.’

What I found particularly interesting about Martinez’s comment was this:

“Accordingly, the only way that Australian firms will be able to grow revenues is by increasing their market share.” [underlined for purposes of my emphasis]

as this succinctly sets out the strategy HWL Ebsworth have had towards the lateral hiring of partners in recent years.

But, crucially, so far as I am concerned, the problem with Martinez’s comment is that:

as evidenced by Corrs Chambers Westgarth recent decision to establish outsourcing provider ‘Orbit’; it – namely increasing market share in Australia – is not the only way that Australian law firms will be able to grow revenue in 2015 if they are willing to look outside the box and consider other ways to monetize their services to clients (another example might be subscription newsletters?); and
although Martinez and HWL Ebsworth may well run a very tight ship on the cost side of the financial equation (and there would be nothing wrong with that as it would be prudent business practice to do so), revenue itself is not an indicator of profit and so growing revenue via increased market share (especially if this is being achieved through the means of lateral hires and new office openings) does not, in and of itself, equate to either a good or sensible approach to growth unless it is underpinning a wider strategic profitable purpose – for example, growth of client wallet from existing clients as opposed to growth of revenue from new clients where there may be an inbuilt acquisition.

Others, of course, are free to disagree with my view.