Morrison on Metrics: Tracking seasonal billing trends
The most variable metric law department managers track is outside counsel spending. This got me wondering whether there is much seasonality to the inflow of invoice amounts: Are there any patterns by month for how much gets billed to law departments?
June 27, 2011 at 08:35 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The most variable metric law department managers track is outside counsel spending. This got me wondering whether there is much seasonality to the inflow of invoice amounts: Are there any patterns by month for how much gets billed to law departments?
A priori, one might suppose that the need for external legal services shows a reasonable consistency during the course of a year, and that invoices arriving for those services, albeit delayed, match that consistency.
Some perturbations do, however, seem likely. Many retailers see their revenue clump into the end-of-year holiday period. And, of course, there are climate-based businesses–think ski lodges and water-skis. It is also reported that some deals are aggressively pushed toward the end of a company's fiscal year. Even so, the invoices of the law firms that work on those deals will not arrive until a month or so later.
It also seems likely that the demand for legal services subsides during the latter part of the summer when people are on vacation. For the same reason, demand ebbs toward the middle of December. Those times of either intense or diminished business activity mean that six to eight weeks later, invoice amounts either soar or slump. The inflow of outside counsel invoices always lags the actual fluctuations of demand for legal services by corporations.
The more international a company, meaning here the more it sells or services outside the United States, the more evenly you would expect the legal work to flow during a year. A slow holiday period in Europe cancels out a busy period in Brazil.
Another contributor to the tides of invoices is the corporation's fiscal year–which way this affects invoice flow, however is not easy to generalize. Sometimes law departments urge their firms to get their bills in so that the department can pay while there's still budget. Under different circumstances, departments ask firms to delay billing them because there is no budget money or they are trying to manage their budget (like publicly traded companies smooth earnings).
Aside from the bumps in bill flow outlined above, I suspect most businesses chug along with a fair degree of regularity during the year and legal invoices follow suit.
Turning to forces on the law firm side, firm management wants to make the most generous distributions to their partners as possible, and therefore may aggressively push billing in November and December while even more aggressively seek prompt payment.
Curiously, tiered discount arrangements may alter whatever was a normal invoicing flow. If a firm's final bill in a year will trigger a higher discount level, especially a retroactive discount, the firm may–if it can–delay the bill until the next year.
When you try to put all these different forces together, and when you consider that some law firms are prompt in their billing practices while others are dilatory, it is most likely that the flow of the invoice amounts stays relatively stable throughout the year but for a bulge at year end. There is thus only mild seasonality in this key metric.
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 AllFrom Reluctant Lawyer to Legal Trailblazer: Agiloft's GC on Redefining In-House Counsel With Innovation and Tech
7 minute readLegal Tech's Predictions for Legal Ops & In-House in 2025
Lawyers Drowning in Cases Are Embracing AI Fastest—and Say It's Yielding Better Outcomes for Clients
Trending Stories
- 1No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 2Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 3Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
- 4Lawyers' Phones Are Ringing: What Should Employers Do If ICE Raids Their Business?
- 5Freshfields Hires Ex-SEC Corporate Finance Director in Silicon Valley
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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