|
Law Firm Accounting Part VII
Make Sure Your Accounting System Supports Smart Strategy
David Debenham*
In past lessons, we have learned that law firms sometimes try to increase their profitability by moving away from routine legal work, like residential real estate and collections, into more challenging areas with less fierce price competition. We have also noted that a firm’s accounting system must capture all costs associated with the new market to be certain that the new work is properly priced to cover true costs. In lesson seven, we explore this concept more fully.
The first step requires considering what costs to allocate to the new business sector. When competing for new business, one may be tempted to use “variable cost” pricing. What exactly does this mean? Well, over a time period, certain costs are “fixed,” meaning they do not vary. Other costs are “variable,” meaning they vary directly with production or output. Finally, still other costs are “semi-variable” or stepped, in that that they are fixed to a certain level of output and jump to another level where they then remain fixed for that new level of output.
Consider rent, for instance. A firm may rent one floor in a building with the rent fixed for 10 years. Rent remains a fixed cost unless production increases to the point where more space must be rented. At this point, rent becomes semi-variable. The same can be said for salaried employees, whose cost is more or less fixed until people must be hired or fired, at which point the cost becomes semi-variable. Equipment generally is fixed or semi-variable, while supplies like pencils and paper and casual-wage employees are variable. Since law firm revenue is predominantly variable, firms may try to move fixed costs to variable costs or use assets to the maximum, either of which fixes costs, to maximize profitability.
So, how can the accounting system lead to bad management decisions? Suppose all fixed costs, like rent and salary, are allocated as follows:
- All fixed costs except an assistant’s salary are overhead, with overhead allocated as $100,000/lawyer or $50/billable hour.
- Two associates share an assistant, where the associates’ assistant costs less than a partner’s and the cost is split equally between the associates so the cost/associate is $12,500 or $6.25/billable hour and the cost/partner is $40,000 or $20/billable hour.
Suppose the partners, billing at higher rates than associates, have an average effective rate of $300/hour compared to the associates’ average rate of $150/hour. A transaction might break down as follows for accounting purposes:
|
|
Revenue Billed and Collected |
Expenses |
|
1 partner |
15 hrs at 350/hr= 4,500 |
|
|
2 associates |
200 hrs at 350/hr=30,000 |
|
|
Revenue |
$34,500 |
|
|
Overhead costs |
|
$10,750 |
|
Associated costs |
|
$ 1,550 |
|
Profit |
|
$22,200 |
Consider, however, that complex matters tend to use more than the average amount of space, equipment, and time generally associated with more run-of-the-mill matters. Consequently, the average fixed costs underestimates the true costs of novel engagements. What is more, since novel engagements are treated as though they consume only existing resources, a firm may be tempted to price them according to only their additional variable costs, rather than their actual fair share of overhead. Miscalculating overhead and other fixed costs can lead to underestimating profits on simple files that consume below average fixed costs and overestimating profits for more complicated, resource-intensive tasks. Because revenues generally do not mirror expenses as files become more complex, lawyers need to tweak their management accounting systems to ensure they make wise strategic decisions.
All too often, here is what happens. A firm’s “finders” – being the marketing partners – bring in big clients with large, complicated niche matters. Very soon, the complicated new work monopolizes staff and displaces other work for smaller clients, whose matters slip in priority to make way for the exciting new files that demand premium service. The premium service devoted to the new work is under-priced given the amount of overhead it eats up, particularly when additional work is thrown in either as a “freebie” or at a deep discount to attract more complex business with the new client. Consequently, lower volume business increasingly displaces the firm’s more profitable, higher volume, but less “sexy” files. As these bread-and-butter files are put on the back burner, revenues increase without profits rising proportionally. Concluding that the routine work is the least profitable, management decides to shift to the more revenue-intensive complex work to shore up profits, which can then spiral into disaster.
This process of forcing profitable, but less exciting work out of the firm leaves the remaining work to carry the same fixed costs. The next level practices that now must carry additional fixed costs as the average overhead costs rise, suddenly appear to be marginally profitable and find themselves next in line to be shunted aside; these practices may leave and set themselves up as boutiques operating from offices with far lower overhead costs. At the same time, the original firm continues struggling with the paradox of growing revenues and sagging profits per partner.
Lesson Seven: Adjust your accounting system to accurately reflect the true cost of work in new markets.
* David Debenham is Counsel with the Ottawa office of Lang Michener LLP. He can be contacted at (613) 232-7171, extension 103.
Back to top >> |