4 priorities for legal departments' profit and loss statements
How to better forecast and budget legal finances
November 27, 2012 at 07:00 PM
7 minute read
It's your company's “budget season,” and for many inside lawyers, that used to mean watching your business clients buried deep in financial numbers, worksheets, trend lines, forecasts and metrics. Today, most law departments, big or small, participate in this ritual along with their colleagues in other business units and departments.
Law department leaders should know and be able to account for every item in their profit and loss (P&L) statement. On the cost side, they should know their internal and external costs. Internal costs often include salary, benefits, travel expenses and overhead for your internal legal staff. External costs typically come from outside counsel and other legal vendors. These costs may reside in the law department's own P&L, or may be allocated to the respective business units or departments. Regardless, the law department should closely track and be able to explain that legal spend.
Importantly, a law department's P&L should not always be a reflection of cost, as there is often revenue or offsets that should be captured too. Examples of such revenue may include case positive settlements your team has negotiated, or reimbursement for matters your legal staff has secured from your insurance carriers.
Law department leaders also need to become adept at setting their annual budgets and at forecasting where their finances are headed. Although this may seem daunting, it doesn't have to be. Here are some tips for more accurately forecasting your department's finances:
Know and be able to defend your headcount. Because the key driver of internal legal spend is the cost associated with your personnel, keep accurate track of the number of employees—both current and anticipated—in your department. If you have an open position, or think it is likely that you will need to add or downsize during your fiscal calendar, then be sure to put those increased or decreased headcount costs into your forecast. Law department leaders also must be able to defend their personnel, so it is important to show the contributions of each team member.
Track external legal spend by category and business unit. For most in-house lawyers, external legal spend is the most unpredictable. It does not always have to be. It is easiest to manage your external legal spend when you know what you're spending it on. At Kaplan, for example, we code our invoices so that we know on a monthly basis how our legal spend breaks down by business unit and by each of the following categories: litigation, labor and employment, commercial contracts, intellectual property, real estate, mergers and acquisitions, regulatory, compliance and general corporate. Within these nine categories, we maintain backup data that shows our monthly and year-to-date spend for every case and matter we handle.
Tightly manage your legal invoices. The No. 1 cause of law departments missing their external legal spend forecast is not knowing the amount of their legal invoices in a timely fashion. At Kaplan, we require that all of our external legal vendors send invoices on the first business day of every month. We therefore are able to code, pay and track, or properly accrue for, our external legal spend in “real time.”
Require and analyze cost estimates and legal trends. Inside counsel should require reasonable cost estimates from legal vendors on all cases and matters. They also should study and analyze both their own historical spending trends and trends in their industry (such as increased regulatory or litigation activity in certain areas). We cannot always know about a truly unforeseen case or matter, but we can use this analysis to bring us closer to predicting legal expenditures.
Law departments with tightly managed P&Ls will find that they are best positioned to control their costs and demonstrate their team's value, and to strengthen their relationships with their key internal constituents and clients.
Janice Block is executive vice president, general counsel and chief compliance officer for Kaplan Inc.
It's your company's “budget season,” and for many inside lawyers, that used to mean watching your business clients buried deep in financial numbers, worksheets, trend lines, forecasts and metrics. Today, most law departments, big or small, participate in this ritual along with their colleagues in other business units and departments.
Law department leaders should know and be able to account for every item in their profit and loss (P&L) statement. On the cost side, they should know their internal and external costs. Internal costs often include salary, benefits, travel expenses and overhead for your internal legal staff. External costs typically come from outside counsel and other legal vendors. These costs may reside in the law department's own P&L, or may be allocated to the respective business units or departments. Regardless, the law department should closely track and be able to explain that legal spend.
Importantly, a law department's P&L should not always be a reflection of cost, as there is often revenue or offsets that should be captured too. Examples of such revenue may include case positive settlements your team has negotiated, or reimbursement for matters your legal staff has secured from your insurance carriers.
Law department leaders also need to become adept at setting their annual budgets and at forecasting where their finances are headed. Although this may seem daunting, it doesn't have to be. Here are some tips for more accurately forecasting your department's finances:
Know and be able to defend your headcount. Because the key driver of internal legal spend is the cost associated with your personnel, keep accurate track of the number of employees—both current and anticipated—in your department. If you have an open position, or think it is likely that you will need to add or downsize during your fiscal calendar, then be sure to put those increased or decreased headcount costs into your forecast. Law department leaders also must be able to defend their personnel, so it is important to show the contributions of each team member.
Track external legal spend by category and business unit. For most in-house lawyers, external legal spend is the most unpredictable. It does not always have to be. It is easiest to manage your external legal spend when you know what you're spending it on. At Kaplan, for example, we code our invoices so that we know on a monthly basis how our legal spend breaks down by business unit and by each of the following categories: litigation, labor and employment, commercial contracts, intellectual property, real estate, mergers and acquisitions, regulatory, compliance and general corporate. Within these nine categories, we maintain backup data that shows our monthly and year-to-date spend for every case and matter we handle.
Tightly manage your legal invoices. The No. 1 cause of law departments missing their external legal spend forecast is not knowing the amount of their legal invoices in a timely fashion. At Kaplan, we require that all of our external legal vendors send invoices on the first business day of every month. We therefore are able to code, pay and track, or properly accrue for, our external legal spend in “real time.”
Require and analyze cost estimates and legal trends. Inside counsel should require reasonable cost estimates from legal vendors on all cases and matters. They also should study and analyze both their own historical spending trends and trends in their industry (such as increased regulatory or litigation activity in certain areas). We cannot always know about a truly unforeseen case or matter, but we can use this analysis to bring us closer to predicting legal expenditures.
Law departments with tightly managed P&Ls will find that they are best positioned to control their costs and demonstrate their team's value, and to strengthen their relationships with their key internal constituents and clients.
Janice Block is executive vice president, general counsel and chief compliance officer for
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 AllSenators Grill Visa, Mastercard Execs on Alleged Anticompetitive Practices, Fees
Trump's SEC Likely to Halt 'Off-Channel' Texting Probe That's Led to Billions in Fines
Trump Likely to Keep Up Antitrust Enforcement, but Dial Back the Antagonism
5 minute readFTC Sues Cash-Advance Fintech Dave, Says It Deceives the 'Financially Vulnerable'
Trending Stories
- 1Mayer Brown’s Hong Kong Split to Take Effect
- 2Simpson Thacher Launches in Luxembourg With Hires From A&O Shearman, Clifford Chance
- 3How Cybercriminals Exploit Law Firms’ Holiday Vulnerabilities
- 4Big Firms May See 'Uncomfortable Flashbacks' as Cost Pressure Grows
- 5Decision of the Day: Judge Explains Ruling to Partially Sequester, Grant Anonymity to Jurors in MS-13 Murder Case
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