header-logo header-logo

Lockup key to law firm success

13 August 2013
Issue: 7573 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Lawyers must bill time & collect fees promptly to maintain cash flow

Law firms need to improve their lockup times if they want to survive, says accountancy firm MHA.

The firm identifies lockup as a concern that is often ignored, and laments that there is too little recognition that chargeable time must be billed and collected promptly to maintain cash flow. According to its 2013 MHA Professional Practices Benchmarking Report, published this week, practices with 11–25 equity partners are the worst performing with an average of 148 days (nearly five months) lockup. It found the national average to be 127 days, and advised firms to aim for a lockup of 110 days.

The report—which looks at firms in Scotland, England and Wales—found that changes to legal aid and personal injury, together with the ongoing economic downturn, has resulted in marginal growth rates for a majority of practices.

Profit per equity partner (PEP) showed little growth, although 2–4 partner practices enjoyed a 27.1% growth spurt to £145,351 per partner between 2011 and 2012. 

Larger practices benefited from professional indemnity insurance costs equivalent  to two per cent of turnover, while smaller firms endured costs worth three per cent of their turnover. 

MHA highlight salary costs as another area that could be improved, and found 11–25 partner practices experiencing on average salary costs of 67% of fee income.

Karen Hain, MHA head of professional practices, says, “We are seeing an increasing move towards mergers and acquisitions among law firms. 

“This is perhaps due to an ongoing lack of growth in recent years.”

NLJ consultant editor David Greene, a senior partner at Edwin Coe, says: “As litigation, particularly in personal injury, has moved to contingency work lockup time has increased. 

“It will normally be compensated by the success fee but that compensation only works if the bill can be collected. Litigation services have always been a practice’s worst performer when it comes to lockup of time recorded but combined with lockup in debt it’s a real problem. 

“The idea of merger is fine but it could simply result in the combination of two problems into one.” 

Issue: 7573 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll