Top 50 Firms Have £5.6BN Of Unpaid Client Invoices
Research shows that the legal sector is operating on a thinly-capitalised model that leaves it vulnerable to market shocks.
June 20, 2019 at 06:21 AM
6 minute read
Law firms have increasingly large amounts of unpaid bills sitting on their balance sheets, which is hurting their cash position, according to an analysis of their limited liability partnership (LLP) accounts.
Research by Legal Week, in conjunction with Smith & Williamson, found that the top 50 LLPs, which does not include Slaughter and May, had £5.6 billion due from clients at the end of the last financial year.
The figure has been increasing annually despite dwindling cash reserves at law firms. This year's figure marks a 9% increase on the 2016-17 figure of £5.19 billion.
Allen & Overy had the highest value of unpaid client bills, with £538.5 million due to the firm. Browne Jacobson had the lowest at £19.3 million.
CMS, meanwhile, marked the highest percentage change year on year, measuring a 91% increase in unpaid bills to £186.3 million, up from £97.5 million, after its three-way merger went live in September 2017. Revenues for the firm's U.K. LLP were £521.9 million following the merger, up 88% from CMS Cameron McKenna's 2016-17 revenues of £277.5 million.
According to the data, which was compiled by accountancy firm Smith & Williamson, the top 50 firms collected £17.3 billion in fees during the financial year 2017-18, meaning that unpaid invoices amounted to almost a third of their total combined revenue.
U.K. firms have traditionally been slower to chase payments than U.S. firms operating in the City, with clients taking on average 121 days to pay U.K. top 50 firms last year.
Travers Smith has been paid had its bills paid the fastest for the last three years, with an average turnaround time of 73 days last year. That figure is increasing steadily, however – it is up from 61 days in 2015-16.
Travers senior partner Chris Hale said: "We do focus on trying to get our bills out as quickly as possible and once they're out, getting them paid. Why ours would be paid faster than others is difficult to explain, but quite a significant number of bills will be paid when they are issued because they are part of the transaction. What that means is that [the bill] will be paid either on completion or a day or two after completion."
Irwin Mitchell clients took the longest to pay the firm last year, taking on average 268.8 days to do so. The firm has had the longest wait time for payment out of the top 50 for the past three years.
A spokesperson for Irwin Mitchell said in a statement: "The time it takes a law firm to get paid depends on the type and mix of work it does. We undertake a considerable amount of commercial work through our business legal services division, however our average payment day figure is influenced significantly by the use of conditional fee agreements and unbilled disbursements on large, complex, personal injury cases.
"We agree to manage these disbursements during these often lengthy cases and then receive payment when they are finalised and settled. If these unbilled disbursements aren't included, the payment day figure falls considerably and in fact it compares favourably with published accounts in the previous year."
Combined, the top 50 firms had £1.325 billion in cash on their balance sheets at the year-end, alongside bank loans and overdrafts totalling £875 million, leaving them with about £450 million in net cash.
However, monthly staff costs came in at £610 million, meaning that firms are relatively thinly capitalised and vulnerable to volatile market conditions – something that faster client bill payments could help to offset.
Nick Randall, associate director at Smith & Williamson, said: "Law firms are and have always been notoriously bad at their lock-up cycle, which is fairly obvious as seen by measuring the balance sheet against the turnover at these firms.
"If clients were to stop paying the law firms for a couple of weeks or a month because there were shocks to the economy, and because firms may hold onto their cash and not pay suppliers, some of these law firms could face significant cashflow problems because it's all wrapped up in things that clients could withhold, so they wouldn't have enough cash to pay their wage bill at the end of the month."
In a videoed interview with Legal Week, Smith & Williamson head of professional services Giles Murphy said: "I think from a position of protecting the firm and making it resilient, the best scenario is to have assets in the form of cash. The debtors are convertible into cash at a period in time, but I think the concern is that is a significant sum of money that is still outstanding.
"If you were to contrast that with perhaps other professional services, or even other just services industries, how many of them would allow a third of their annual revenue to still be due from their clients and customers at the year-end? I think you would say that the legal market is at the extreme, and it's the wrong end of that extreme."
Murphy added that based on the numbers his firm had seen, if firms were able to reduce their outstanding bills by just 10% by the year-end, that would more than double their net cash positions.
"Being realistic, we're not suggesting that they're suddenly going to change their historic practices, but fairly minor changes can have a significant impact… It's all about ensuring that the gap between when they do the work and when the client pays gets minimised."
To view the full analysis of the top 50′s unpaid bills, click here.
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 AllTo Thrive in Central and Eastern Europe, Law Firms Need to 'Know the Rules of Game'
7 minute readGOP's Washington Trifecta Could Put Litigation Finance Industry Under Pressure
Trending Stories
- 1Clark Hill Acquires L&E Boutique in Mexico City, Adding 5 Lawyers
- 26th Circuit Judges Spar Over Constitutionality of Ohio’s Ballot Initiative Procedures
- 3On The Move: Polsinelli Adds Health Care Litigator in Nashville, Ex-SEC Enforcer Joins BCLP in Atlanta
- 4After Mysterious Parting With Last GC, Photronics Fills Vacancy
- 5Latham Lures Restructuring Partners From Weil, Paul Weiss
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