21. Why Are Some Bills Easier to Collect than Others?
The client who gets a good outcome, on time and on budget, without any unnecessary drama, has no reason to challenge the bill. Not just no reason, but no basis or incentive.
November 05, 2021 at 09:02 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Lean Adviser
It's that time of the year again. We are now entering the height of collection and budgeting season. The drum beat from firm management will be familiar: you need to make your personal numbers, the firm needs to make budget, and so everyone has to play their part. This will have been a recurring message throughout the year, only now the tone is louder and more urgent. In the eyes of firm management, this issue goes a long way to separate the good citizens from the usual suspects. Given that the year-end collection push is followed by the compensation review cycle, you really want to be on the right side of these optics. Needless to say, this topic gains extra importance if your January business plan contained grand promises or optimistic predictions.
So why is it that for some people this issue seems to take care of itself, and their realization statistics are consistently high, while for others this is a perennial struggle? Why do some people sail through the entire budgeting, billing and collection process, while for others collection always means trepidation? If you're in the second group, the season when you need every precious minute to get time-sensitive work across the line and have a strong finish, is exactly when you don't want to lose valuable hours trying to get proforma agreed with clients, or getting caught up in disputes over old bills. We all know how this ends. In most cases, there's an awkward discussion with firm management, a write-off and an ex-client to eliminate from next year's business plan.
Like everything we do in the practice of law, methods matter. It's not just about what you know, it's also about how you do the work. This is where the lessons and tools in Lean Adviser can be your personal best friend. If you've understood your clients, collaborated with them, anticipated their needs, offered them horizon-scanning and managed their work efficiently, effectively and transparently, then billing and collection will take care of itself. Why? Because the client who gets a good outcome, on time and on budget, without any unnecessary drama, has no reason to challenge the bill. Not just no reason, but no basis or incentive.
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
© 2024 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 AllHow I Made Practice Group Chair: 'Think About Why You Want the Role, Because It Is Not an Easy Job,' Says Aaron Rubin of Morrison Foerster
Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Match Group's Katie Dugan & Herrick's Carol Goodman
2 minute readLegal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Eric Wall, Executive VP, Syllo
1 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Legaltech Rundown: LexisNexis Releases Lexis+ AI Mobile App, Hotshot Launches New M&A Training Simulation, and More
- 2Perkins Coie Boasts Diverse Partner Class
- 3NY Judge Indefinitely Delays Sentencing in Trump Hush Money Case
- 4US Supreme Court Tries to Define a 'Crime of Violence'
- 5How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'Think About Why You Want the Role, Because It Is Not an Easy Job,' Says Aaron Rubin of Morrison Foerster
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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