Morrison on Metrics: Absolute Clarity About Normalized Metrics
How to compare law departments of all sizes through normalized numbers.
September 12, 2010 at 08:00 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
An absolute number, such as 10 lawyers, differs from a normalized number, such as 10 lawyers per billion of revenue. The bigger the law department, the larger the absolute numbers, whether of lawyers, internal spend, external spend, cases, office locations, library books or whatever. Small legal departments just don't match up. However, if you divide the absolute numbers of departments of all sizes by revenue (or by employees, market capitalization, years in business, depreciation on hardware or some other figure they all have), departments of every size can compare themselves to each other on a similar quantitative footing. Both the top number (the numerator) and the bottom number it is divided by (the denominator) tend to grow or diminish in proportion. This technique of normalization allows benchmarking analysts to include law departments of vastly different sizes and yet produce their metrics on a comparable basis.
Let's clarify this with some examples. A law department with three lawyers has 60 cases pending. Another company has 20 lawyers and 200 cases pending. The absolute numbers are much bigger, obviously, for the second department, but is the ratio of lawyers to cases? Without normalizing those absolute numbers, it is difficult to say which law department has a higher caseload for its attorneys. So, you divide each department's cases by its lawyers. The first has 20 cases per lawyer whereas the larger department has only 10 cases per lawyer. Once you normalize the two departments – adjust their figures by numbers of lawyers, you can speak about them in the same proportionate terms and clearly describe differences in caseload.
Consider another example based on compensation. If you know that lawyer Alpha makes $200,000 in base and lawyer Beta makes $220,000, all you can say is that Alpha makes $20,000 less than Beta. If, however, you were to divide each lawyer's salary by the lawyer's years out of law school, you will find that lawyer Alpha – who graduate five years after Beta – makes considerably more in terms of dollars per post-law-school years. Alpha at 15 years makes $13,333 per post-grad year whereas older Beta at 20 years from law school makes $11,000 per year. That calculation normalizes the two lawyers' pay by years of legal experience and shows that Alpha is doing considerably better.
Whenever you normalize a set of numbers by dividing each one in the set against the same other number (which may well vary from department to department, such as numbers of cases pending or years out of law school), you can also reverse the division – make the former numerator the denominator – and produce a different version. For example with a group of law departments you could normalize the patent annuities paid each year by dividing those payments by the number of their patent records. Alternatively, with a mathematical flip, you can divide the number of patent records by the annuity payments per year. Thus, one company with 100 patents around the world and payments of $100,000 yields a normalized metric of either $1,000 per patent record or one/tenth of a percent of a patent record per dollar of annuities (but you probably multiply both numbers by one thousand and express the ratio as one patent record for every thousand dollars of annuities).
Which fraction to use depends mostly on familiarity. General counsel may be more familiar with one way to express it, such as total legal spending as a percentage of revenue, but it is just as accurate to describe the normalized result as revenue dollars per dollar of total legal spending.
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 AllLawyers Drowning in Cases Are Embracing AI Fastest—and Say It's Yielding Better Outcomes for Clients
GC Conference Takeaways: Picking AI Vendors 'a Bit of a Crap Shoot,' Beware of Internal Investigation 'Scope Creep'
8 minute readWhy ACLU's New Legal Director Says It's a 'Good Time to Take the Reins'
Trending Stories
- 1Litigators of the Week: A Knockout Blow to Latest FCC Net Neutrality Rules After ‘Loper Bright’
- 2Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout-Outs
- 3Norton Rose Sues South Africa Government Over Ethnicity Score System
- 4KMPG Wants to Provide Legal Services in the US. Now All Eyes Are on Their Big Four Peers
- 5Friday Newspaper
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