Leaving aside the whole issue of whether or nor the billable hour is the best way to charge clients, do you think it is fair to charge different client different rates for the same work?
This article by Jordan Rothman on abovethelaw.com would suggest the answer to that question is – ‘yes’.
And I actually don’t disagree with Jordan’s outcome, but do disagree with his thinking of why.
After all, at least here in Australia, we very rarely have the same panel rate for all legal panels we are appointed to so; despite, or rather, the fact that we will be doing similar work under the various panel appointments.
QED – IMO – it’s fair to charge different clients different rates for the same work we do (and, HINT, it all comes out in the wash when you look at the Average Realised Rate – but I will leave that for another post).
But, and here is the critical difference I have with Jordan’s post, different clients will equate a different value to the work being done by you – and so it is more than fair to charge one client more or less than another client perceived on the value of the service they are getting.
For example, and I accept this is somewhat crude, somebody who has never been divorced before and whom your firm ‘looks after’ in a very emotional period of their life is way more likely to value the service your firm provides than someone going through their fifth divorce – so charge them more!
If you want to have a chat about how you can maximise your value opportunities, feel free to reach out.
As usual, the Report is a very interesting read; but by far the two standouts for me were:
Notice that rise in Direct Expenses?
That’s down to the pay rises you just gave to your 2 to 6 year PQE lawyers who are now sitting around very under utilised!
Where will clients need help?
The other chart in the Report that caught my attention was where clients anticipate their spend over the next 6 months.
Given the hangover from COVID, Workplace doesn’t surprise me too much.
Dispute Resolution, in difficult economic times, will always be a winner.
But, why Regulatory? We have moved past most of our Royal Commissions…
…and unless I’m missing something there is no growth mentioned for either Privacy or Cyber.
Given the ongoing changes in privacy regulation in Australia just announced, and global concerns around cyber (with IPH Ltd going into a trading halt following a potential cyberattack on two of its member firms this week), this must be an oversight.
If this all sounds too close to home to be true, feel free to drop me a line to talk through how we can fix this up.
I have only tried to predict what might happen in the next 12 months in the world of AusLaw once. It was exactly 10 years ago – 2013 – and I got it so horribly wrong that many would argue I should never, ever, touch this subject again!
Of course, countering that I would argue that getting numbers #2 and #3 close to right, at that time, showed major insight – and surely you can gift me #6.
But there has to be a reason why I have not done a prediction post since and that reason is: Because I’m rubbish at it!
Instead, these days, I review the predictions of others and opine on whether – from my lofty hight of ‘know it all‘ – they can call it better than I can – which, they usually can!
And so that is why this year I would like to draw your attention to the 2023 Citibank-Hildebrant Consulting LLC ‘Client Advisory Report‘.
In its 15th Year, this Report has done a whole lot better at guessing what the future holds for law firms than I have ever done; and Part II: ‘Looking ahead to 2023 and beyond‘, Section B: ‘Key trends to watch in 2023‘, sets out 16(ish) trends to watch-out for in the next 12 months.
So let’s take a look at what these suggested trends are, and I will then add some comments I might have on them.
THE REPORT’S FORECASTED 2023 TRENDS
The evolution of the hybrid work model to a “more flexible” work model
The growth and reshaping of lawyer leverage
Equity partner growth at more firms
Greater focus on both revenues and expense-related operation efficiencies, including: I. Rethinking space II. Redesigning the professional staff leverage model III. More outsourcing IV. Increased use of project management V. Thinking twice about business travel VI. More investment in technology VII. Improving realization
Continued focus on improving the billing and collections process VIII. Greater focus on cross-selling opportunities IX. Financing growth
And here I go with my 2c.
The jury is out with this one – on the part of both the employee and the employer. I read a report the other day that stated employees wanted back in the office with rising cost of living expenses (read gas and electricity, but also inflation more generally). If that is true. get a couple of 30+ degree days in a row running the aircon all day, employees may well want to be working back in the office pronto (anyone else remember going to there cinema to cool-down?). On the other hand, employers are looking to reduce their footprint – after all, rent is up there with salaries winning the Biggest Overhead cost award. Some compromise is inevitable but it would not surprise me if we see a hybrid of a model introduced into Auslaw about a decade ago by Herbert Smith Freehills where you see most lawyers in the office 3 or 4 days a week, but back-office support staff (or Allied Professionals) working mostly from home.
There’s a recession on the way. It has already arrived in many parts of the world. And with a recession comes something called ‘stickiness’ – where lawyers, especially at Special Counsel level, keeping work they could otherwise be passing down to more junior lawyers makes sure they (a) make bonus, and (b) keep their jobs [after all, Special Counsel is the biggest loss leading level in most law firms]!
Unlikely – 5 generations in the workforce and a recession. I’d think you need to be very special to be looking at equity partner entry level at the moment. Now if we are talking salary partner, I would agree. And keep in mind that roles like ‘Managing Associate’ and ‘Special Counsel’ were born out of the 2008 GFC, so we may see more of these job descriptions appearing in job adverts in the near-ish future.
Absolutely, but let’s look at this a little closer: I.’Rethinking space’ – yes, see my response in 1 above II. ‘Redesigning the professional staff leverage model’ – no, see my answer in 2 above III. ‘More outsourcing’ – I wish, see number 8 from my 2013 prediction list! IV. ‘Increased use of project management’ – we have been talking about this for over a decade and if we still haven’t got this right then we don’t deserve to keep putting this on our ‘wish list’ V. ‘Thinking twice about business travel’ – absolute no brainer! Partners’ use of their airmails for upgrades will be a growing trend in the next 12 months! VI. ‘More investment in technology’ – yes and no. Yes if it is for cyber-security (especially client-driven cyber-security requirements), and yes if it is for time-based billing. But no if it is for anything else. VII. Improving realization – AFAs – Pre-negotiated discounts – Continued focus on improving the billing and collections process So much to say here, but all I will say is – rubbish. And what on earth is a ‘pre-negotiated discount’, is that a contractually agreed volume discount? If so, it is not an AFA! VIII. Greater focus on cross-selling opportunities – as I’m currently reading Heidi Gardner and Ivan A. Matviak’s ‘Smarter Collaboration: A New Approach to Breaking Down Barriers and Transforming Work‘ (didn’t realise they were married before I read this) I would hope so. But experience has shown me that partnership deeds drive cross-selling opportunities and not altruistic behaviour a lot better than HBR top-selling books! IX. Financing growth – ahh, maybe we wait and see how the other predictions go! And keep in mind that financial growth does not necessarily mean ‘profit growth’, which should be the main game for any law firm!
Anyhow, as usual comments are my own. And I hope everyone has a great 2023!
According to a post in Lawyers Weekly today, Clyde & Co is celebrating its 10th birthday here in Australia – “Happy Birthday!” .
How time flies; and there is no doubt that Clydes has done well here in Australia. As the LW article points out, the firm has enjoyed:
“a growth rate of 115 per cent in the country since 2018.”
Which, to be fair, is not a one-off year as the financial figures show:
“The firm has maintained yearly growth rates of over 20 per cent for the past five years.”
As sustainable growth, which over 5 years you have to assume it is, and an underlying culture that must be driving this growth, everyone would say have to say – “wow, can we have some of that!”.
As impressive as these accolades are – and I’m a huge fan* of how this one time shipping insurance firm has been able to pivot into one of the world’s leading cyber/privacy/technology firms which has resulted in Australia currently ranking its global operations as:
“Clyde & Co’s third-largest country by fees generated”
I have a concern.
And that is this:
“Clyde & Co exceeds $100m in annual revenue in Australia”
Followed by this:
As I first pointed out way back in 2013 and several times since, Australian-based law firms primarily earning/reporting revenue in Australian Dollars, but with accounting systems and tax years based on British Pounds (or US$s), face the dragon known as ‘exchange rates’.
So what does that mean?
The answer is in that chart, it is also in the Lawyers Weekly headline, but I suspect – most importantly – it is in the individual Australian partners’ direct contribution, because that chart tells me there is every chance they could be the third biggest revenue earning geographic zone for the firm globally, and a hell of a long way down the pecking order when it comes to partner distribution.
Anyhow, “Happy Birthday Clydes!”
As usual, comments are my own (*although in this case I will add that while I don’t, now ever have, worked at Clydes I do know a lot of people who do and I greatly admire the work they do).
In a case that appears to have gone largely unreported outside of the US, last week (31 August 2022 – reported on Bloomberg’s website) Ohio’s Supreme Court rejected an appeal by international law firm Dentons to a relatively long running case that could, possibly, shake-up the accepted business model of many similarly structured international law firms – including some with a presence here in Australia, such as: DLA Piper, Squire Patton Boggs, Baker McKenzie, Norton Rose Fulbright and King Wood Mallesons.
So what is this all about? Core to this case was an actually or potential conflict of interest, with a specific twist on the way law firms are structured under the Swiss Verein business model.
Before we jump into why this might be an issue though: What the Hell is a Swiss Verein?
The Swiss Verein business model
Wikipedia – which anyone who knows me well will be able to tell you I do not see as being the font of all knowledge, does a good job in this case of defining a ‘Swiss Verein‘:
“The association can also be used as a legal form for a business organization consisting of a number of independent offices, each of which has limited liability vis-à-vis the others. The form is often used by multinational professional firms so they can operate globally under one brand whilst maintaining separate profit pools (and ring-fencing liability) in each country in which they operate.
Well, let’s take a look at the issues in this matter…
At the heart of this matter..
Core to this whole dispute was that:
RevoLaze argued that Dentons shouldn’t have taken on the company’s patent case in 2015 because one of the firm’s Swiss verein affiliates in Canada had represented Gap Inc., which RevoLaze sued for patent infringement.
The verein structure lets law operations affiliate to market services under one brand while avoiding a full-on merger. Affiliates limit liability between offices and keep separate on matters such as profits, pay and taxes.
Okay, so now I’m starting to see why this might be an issue.
But who really cares?
As the Bloomberg article states:
The RevoLaze case tests whether firms using the Swiss verein model must do conflicts checks with all affiliates in their networks before deciding to take on a client.
Can you imagine that – over a 24 hour global time line! What would an “urgent” conflict check look like?
Or, maybe, get an integrated conflict check system – but that goes against the Swiss Verein model, so how about we take on board this (in the Bloomberg article):
Verein firms risk losing business if they’re required to disclose conflicts related to affiliates’ work. Existing clients may balk at other representations, and potential clients could decide to go elsewhere.
So what does the future hold for the Swiss Verein?
The answer – I have no idea. It’s one court decision – pretty influential though.
On the other hand, how long is it going to take to unwind any Swiss Verein structured law firm – in my view a project that will likely take 10 years!
FY22 (defined as being 1 July to 30 June) was a tale of two halves. In the first half, 1 July to 31 December, Australian law firms smashed it out of the park (6.4% growth in the first half), but the second half was much harder going and the market declined 2.1%, representing its weakest quarterly return since 2013
Drivers of growth were all the usual crowd: mergers & acquisitions, banking & finance, etc
Retention – especially at the Associate level – is a major concern with 31.6%, roughly one-third, of Australian associates having decided to move on from their firm over the past 12 months
Law firms are trying to counter this attrition rate by offering their star Associates more money, which makes sense when you consider how much it costs to replace lawyers, but more recently Associate demands have included demands outside of pure financial reward – including a belief that the firm is taking a strategic direction that aligns with their values
Your firm’s reputation in the marketplace is important if you want to keep your Associates
Diversity IS important:
Global research from the Thomson Reuters Institute found that female lawyers and/or those from under-represented demographics, as well as those who identified as LGBTQ+, were the most likely to leave their current firms.
Lawyers in Australia from diverse backgrounds are NOT feeling the love:
lawyers from diverse backgrounds gave notably lower-than-average marks in both their own well-being and their leadership demonstrating the importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) as compared to lawyers with non-diverse backgrounds
Anyone who has read the ‘2021 Annual Profile of Solicitors‘ by the Law Society of NSW should be able to tell you why that’s a problem that’s not going away unless law firms demonstrate a change.
Innovation remains important, even though we are not actually too sure what that means as we continue to draw a hard line between “innovation” and “technology”
That said, there is a really cool ‘Innovation adoption checklist‘ on page 23 that is worth the download by itself!
Partners are leading the utilisation charge – there may be a whole host of reason given for this from “clients want partner time on the matter” to “we don’t want to over burden our associates because they may leave us” but an annual average utilisation rate of slightly over 1,200 billable hours tells me some lawyers out there are working very hard
Last, but by no way least, is an amazing graph on pages 26 and 27 that sets out the ‘4 roles of a law firm partner’ which is brilliant and makes me wish I had created it!
Well done it all involved and make sure you read the report.
In conjunction with Urbis, the New South Wales law Society recently published its 2021 Annual Profile of Solicitors in NSW Report. This latest snapshot of the legal profession in NSW has some interesting take-outs, so I thought I would highlight them in the first blog I have done in several months…
A Snapshot of the Industry
Overall the industry is healthy. There are close to 40,000 solicitors in NSW with current practising certificates (I would be interested to see what that number would be if the cost of maintaining a practising certificate wasn’t so high!).
Lady Justice would be happy to see that for the 5th year in a row there were more female solicitors with practising certificates than males, BUT there is still a LONG WAY to go for female parity here.
So where do we all work?
7 out of 10 solicitors in NSW work in private practice
And most of those private practitioners don’t work in the CBD…
The surprising figure for me there was only 3% have overseas addresses – which, given how popular Australian lawyers are overseas, indicates a data/price issue.
But how hard are we working?
Okay, so how much are we earning?
Well, not a lot really – more than half earn less than $150,000 per year (think ‘student debt’, think 50 to 60 hours a week)…
But men and women get paid the same – right?
Not exactly. While you might start out the same – the longer you work, the more likely men will get better paid than women in private practice in NSW…
But I thought Lady Justice had our backs…
Yeah, not exactly. Headline stats can read well, but scratch the surface and you might find a problem…
and if that is not a graph of gender in-balance, I don’t know what is…
As usual, comments are my own and I welcome feedback.
You’d have to have been hiding under a rock for past two years not to have seen an article or two on the benefits/pitfalls of remote working. But, as we move into the next phase of this pandemic/endemic, one in which we must start to learn to live with COVID, law firm management now need to be asking:
‘What does the future of the office look like for our firm?’
Truth is, there’s no simple answer to this question. On the one hand, we have those who advocate that “distance breeds distrust” and “out of sight, out of mind”. On the other hand, we have a lot of people saying we’re not going back to the old ways – and if you make us, we will part of the Great Resignation.
One answer to this issue might be in what the Australian Financial Review recently termed ‘Anchor Days’.
As per the AFR article, ‘Anchor Days’ are days on which a group of employees (in the same team) agree to go into the office on the same day each week with the aim of enhancing collaboration and ensuring a more lively office culture.
While I like the concept of Anchor Days, I think I should also point out that, from my reading, it comes with a couple of major misconceptions:
we all work in the same physical location (geographically in the same State/Cities, but also on the same floor of a building!).
that collaboration is more likely to happen in physical presence, when what we actually find is that collaboration more likely occurs with inclusion, and inclusion is more aligned with trust. QED, if you want more collaboration within your team, then trusting that your team can get it’s shit done here remotely/agile and not dictating collaboration top down, is a big step in the right direction.
My final comment: if Anchor Days become a thing, what day(s) would you chose?