Law Firms' Unpaid Bills Are Piling Up. No Reason to Worry—Yet
Firms are sitting on a bigger pile of unpaid bills this year, due to more work and slower payments from clients.
December 02, 2019 at 05:00 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The American Lawyer
How bad will the collections crunch be this year? Inventory is up, clients are taking longer to pay bills, and the coming weeks will be a critical time for law firms to turn client bills into cash.
Law firms are sitting on a growing pile of bills they haven't sent out or their clients haven't paid yet, but financial observers and at least one law firm leader said this kind of behavior isn't causing alarm bells to go off—yet.
The law firms surveyed by Citi Private Bank's Law Firm Group and Wells Fargo Legal Specialty Group reported that their inventories of unpaid bills have grown by 6.7% and 9%, respectively, compared with last year, in the first nine months of 2019.
"It's tricky," said Joe Mendola, senior director of sales at Wells Fargo Legal Specialty Group. "You can have inventory going up because firms are extremely busy. It doesn't always necessarily mean slow pay, but I think in this period, I think it's a combination of both."
Citi found that law firms are taking longer to send out the bill and to get paid by their clients. Across the U.S., the amount of time that has elapsed between law firms first recording their billable hours to getting paid has increased by 1.5%, according to Citi.
But in Washington, D.C. and southern California, that period has increased by 4.7% and 3.3%, respectively, said Gretta Rusanow, the head of advisory services within Citi Private Bank's Law Firm Group. As a result, the inventories for law firms in those areas grew 8%.
Even with these higher inventories, no one is panicking just yet. Both Mendola and Rusanow said the fourth quarter of any year is a major collection period for law firms, with Mendola noting that 30% to 35% of a firm's annual revenue might come in during the last three months of the year.
"The message we've been conveying is, it's an opportunity for firms to really focus on what is traditionally the strongest collection quarter of the year," Rusanow said. "There are firms that see a large portion of their revenue growth come in just the last few days of the calendar year."
Am Law 200 firm Dinsmore & Shohl is one of the many firms seeing an increase in inventory.
The inventory of unpaid legal bills has grown for the Cincinnati-based firm over the past 12 to 16 months, said Robert Lucas, the managing partner of the firm's Chicago office. While the firm's average collection time from clients has dropped, it's had to cajole some partners to ensure they're actually billing their clients as they work, he said.
"It's more, for us, staying on top of it and making sure any increases in our inventory are due to the fact that we are very productive and billing more time," Lucas said, who added that inventory rates can also adjust if a law firm has increased its billing rates.
Slower Payments
One factor in the high inventory rate and the lengthening collection cycle is the time it takes clients to pay their bills. Rusanow and Mendola both said clients are taking longer to pay bills, with Rusanow describing how a 30-day pay cycle might become a 45 or 60-day pay cycle.
But partners feel like they can only do so much because the law is a relationship-heavy business, said Jay Benegal, senior vice president and legal industry specialist at Citizens Commercial Banking, a lender to large and midsize law firms.
"It's difficult for partners to chase down these clients for payment because they want to protect the relationship," Benegal said. "So they tread very carefully around the collections process, to the point where partners don't want to engage clients on the collections effort."
Benegal doesn't believe client behavior in stalling payments can be attributed to fears about a pending recession. Instead, it seems their business cycles have slowed down, which in turn leads to them paying their vendors—including their legal counsels—later, Benegal said. This slowdown is not isolated to any one sector or industry, he added.
It also might not be deliberate on the client's part. A lot of businesses use electronic billing systems, which might reject a legal bill from a law firm if it's not properly coded, Lucas and Rusanow said.
"You have to make sure all of your I's are dotted and all of your T's are crossed," Lucas said. "There can be a number of things that can contribute to a slower collection."
Read More
A 'Very, Very Good Year' for Law Firms? Maybe So, but Not for Everyone
Enthusiasm Gap Persists Between Law Firms and In-House Counsel
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPenn State Dickinson Law Dean Named President-Elect of Association of American Law Schools
Arizona Board Gives Thumbs Up to KPMG's Bid To Deliver Legal Services
Big Law Practice Leaders Gearing Up for State AG Litigation Under Trump
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250