3 Numbers Reveal the State of Top UK Firms' Financial Health
An auditor analysis of the top 50 U.K. firms' limited liability partnership accounts offers us some insight into their efficiency and progress.
July 01, 2020 at 01:00 AM
4 minute read
Accounting is sometimes derided for being more of an art than a science. Law firm accounting can be even more creative.
Firms can easily manipulate their average profits per equity partner by limiting the number of full equity partners and by including or excluding partners who left midyear, depending on what helps their figure most. And revenue growth offers little insight as to whether a firm has won more premium mandates, hired in more partners or simply received a large payment for a long-running piece of work.
But if we were investors in these firms, we would want the numbers to tell us whether they were becoming more efficient, whether they had improved their internal systems, and how financially prudent they were being.
With that in mind, an auditor analysis of the top 50 U.K. firms' limited liability partnership accounts offers us some insight.
Are U.K. firms becoming more efficient? In the 12 months leading up to April 2019, the average profit margin of the U.K.'s top 50 firms was about 31%, which is where it was two years before. How has this happened? Have advancements in legal technology failed? It was supposed to cheaply handle process-driven work, enabling lawyers to spend their time on more profitable activities.
The answer is that gains in other areas have largely been wiped out by rises in staff costs. On average, the wage bill for these firms rose 6.5%, which means despite revenue growth and operating profit growth of just over 7%, there has been little improvement in operational efficiency.
Lawyer and staff support costs equate to about 40% of revenue on average. And although 11 firms managed to lower these costs as a percentage of revenue, twice that number saw costs increase as a proportion of revenue.
Second, are firms improving their internal systems to bolster their finances? One of the quirks of the U.K. legal industry is that its accrual accounting methods essentially allow clients more time to pay. The incentive for partners to bill is high, but there is little incentive for them to annoy clients by chasing payments.
That means that, as of April 2019, the top 50 U.K. firms were owed just under £6 billion ($7.2 billion). The average amount of time to collect payment was 119 days—about four months. Crucially, this is improving, but progress is very slow. Two years prior, the figure was just under 121 days. It could be a while before this large pile of uncollected cash helps boost law firm finances.
Finally, and perhaps most important given the current market malaise, how well positioned are firms to weather a crisis?
Some firms may perform well during this time, but it is probably safe to assume the vast majority have suffered a steep drop in revenue over recent months. For those firms, the key question will be how much cash they have and how that measures up against their monthly expenditures.
On average, the top 50 U.K. firms had just over £30 million ($36 million) in cash and a monthly wage bill of about £13 million ($15.7 million). Based on the numbers at that point in time, 15 firms had less than one month's wages on hand. Only 14 firms had more than three months' wages.
Firms will clearly need bank loans and overdrafts. As of April 2019, two-thirds of the top 50 firms had some form of debt, which amounted to an average of about £23 million ($28 million), a number we can expect to rise.
Perhaps the most concerning thing is that the worst is yet to come. We are currently in the middle of the 2019-20 reporting season, which will only give us a small indication of the impact of the pandemic. But the tax bill for U.K. firms is due Jan. 31, 2021. That is when their cash balances tend to be at their lowest. That is when their ability to improve efficiency, collect cash and remain financially secure will really be tested.
Email: [email protected]
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 AllFrom ‘Deep Sadness’ to Little Concern, Gaetz’s Nomination Draws Sharp Reaction From Lawyers
7 minute readDechert 'Spark Tank' Competition Encourages Firmwide Innovation Focus
Akerman Opens Charlotte Office With Focus on Renewable Energy, Data Center Practices
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Simpson Thacher Replenishes London Ranks With Latest Linklaters Defection
- 2Holland & Knight, Akin, Crowell, Barnes and Day Pitney Add to DC Practices
- 3Squire Patton Boggs Associate Among Those Killed in String of Methanol Poisonings
- 4Womans Suit Alleging Negligence to Sex Trafficking by Hotel Tossed by Federal Judge
- 5More Big Law Firms Rush to Match Associate Bonuses, While Some Offer Potential for Even More
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