22. The Real Cost for Not Understanding Your Client's Budget
Your firm may ask you and your colleagues to meet billable hours targets and revenue targets. This is common, and you may be forgiven for thinking that it's up to the clients to make this happen. But it's the other way around. Clients don't exist to help law firms make budget; law firms exist to help clients make budget.
November 12, 2021 at 08:22 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Lean Adviser
In the first lesson on budgeting, we asked why some bills are easier to collect than others. This time we take a closer look at the relationship between law firm budgets and client budgets.
Let's start by noting the increase in increased demand for legal services. It was sudden and very welcome, but quite possibly temporary. This uptick had some remarkable knock-on effects, starting with competition among law firms for talent, leading to increased salaries. Since law firms have no appetite for reducing profitability, this will all get passed on to the place it started — clients. In all this animation, it is easy to forget the fundamentals. Demand may be up, but clients still care about money, and GCs are still budget holders.
So how does this all hang together? A common misconception is that there are competing processes here. It may seem like there's a budgeting process within law firms, then a separate process for individual attorneys, usually called targets not budgets, and lastly there's the clients' legal budgets. But, actually, this misunderstands the dynamic. In reality, there aren't three separate competing processes, but one joined-up process. As has been preached throughout Lean Adviser, lean law practice starts by looking from the client's perspective and the way forward instantly becomes clear.
Your firm may ask you and your colleagues to meet billable hours targets and revenue targets. This is common, and you may be forgiven for thinking that it's up to the clients to make this happen. But it's the other way around. Clients don't exist to help law firms make budget; law firms exist to help clients make budget.
From the client standpoint, every year there is a volume of work which needs to be supported, and the business sets aside some funding for the GC to achieve it. Project by project, and year by year, the GC has to manage a limited budget. If the GC runs out of budget, he or she has a problem. If you're the reason this happened, then you also have a problem.
We can see this intersect between the budgets of law firms and clients in sharp focus on the day you present a bill. If your work meets agreed expectations, comes in at an agreed budget, and if it represents overall value, then it's very easy for the GC to sign it off. It's also easy for the GC to rehire you for the next project. It all comes down to being reliable. This is why there is content in Lean Adviser about the difference between razzamatazz, which is of no value to clients, and reliability, which is priceless.
As you reflect on the importance of clients' budgets, here are some tips to remember:
- The GC is accountable to the business — so you're accountable to the GC.
- If in any doubt about budgeting, costing or price sensitivity, ask.
- If you work efficiently, effectively and transparently, you'll meet budget and billing will take care of itself
- Aspire to reliability, not razzamatazz; just do what you say you're going to do.
- Demand goes up, and demand goes down, but good methods will be your ally forever.
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 AllThe Narrow Path Back From Disbarment: 'You Have to Really Want to Be a Lawyer Again'
5 minute readNew Jersey Law Journal Names Mike Zogby Office Managing Partner of the Year
2 minute readClimate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
Trending Stories
- 1Trump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
- 2Armstrong Teasdale's London Creditors Face Big Losses
- 3Texas Court Invalidates SEC’s Dealer Rule, Siding with Crypto Advocates
- 4Quinn Emanuel Has Thrived in China. Will Trump Help Boost Its Fortunes?
- 5Manufacturer Must Provide Details Surrounding Expert’s Livestreamed Inspection, Fed Court Rules
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