Five Financing Options for Law Firms in Challenging Times
Some ways of improving a law firm's financial situation are tried and tested, others are more novel.
April 03, 2020 at 04:49 AM
5 minute read
Law Firms are today under tremendous pressure.
The impact of coronavirus is rapidly being felt across all sectors of the economy and professional services is particularly exposed. With many clients seeking to protect their own cash by delaying payments, or deferring projects, income for most law firms will be down. And with high fixed costs of well-paid staff and prime location rents, there is significant overhead which can't sustainably be reduced.
As many firms are thinly capitalised, the need for suitable sources of finance which have short term benefit but don't hamstring the firm in the long term has never been greater.
Of the myriad finance options out there, five are likely to be under active consideration by law firm leaders: working capital optimization; bank overdraft facilities, internal funds (partner calls); government coronavirus support; and litigation finance for cases or portfolios. Each has benefits and costs. Some of these levers will be more familiar to management teams than others.
1) Working Capital
Managing Lock-Up is familiar to many law firm partners. Timely issuance of bills and chasing payments are established disciplines. The challenge today is that clients who themselves are under pressure are pushing back on paying bills already issued. Partners may, therefore, be reticent to chase unpaid bills let alone issue new ones to avoid damaging relationships.
Some firms may look to use a factoring company to provide immediate cash flow, but this may suggest the firm is distressed. Others may seek to delay payments to their own suppliers, but this risks reputational damage. A balance must be found to secure cash today without causing longer-term damage.
2) Bank overdrafts
Firms will have established credit facilities with one or more lender. Where good relationships exist, and covenants allow, it may be possible to seek an extension of agreed facilities in the short term. Whilst base rates have fallen, banks will apply risk-based pricing to any new facilities granted, which may mean costs are prohibitive.
Firms will also need to consider the long-term impact of liabilities taken onto their balance sheets – debts will one day need to be repaid. For many firms, bank facilities will be low down the list of preference but may be the default choice where limited knowledge of alternatives exists.
3) Partner finance
Often seen as a last resort, seeking funding from partners remains an option for many. For some firms, this may be in the form of delaying or reducing partner distributions. This will probably be unpalatable but is usually speedy to implement. Other firms may look to tap partners to inject further equity. This is likely to be particularly difficult in current circumstances due to the personal impact it will have on colleagues in both short and long term.
Partner finance is politically unpopular but is likely to be on the agenda of many management teams who have not yet explored other options.
4) Government support
This is a rapidly evolving area with numerous options, the benefits and costs of which are yet to become clear. Facilities coming on stream include grants for 'furloughed' and sick staff wages, deferred VAT bills, loans for SMEs and debt facilities for larger business backed by the Bank of England (though in practise the collateral for these lines of credit may not vary from what bank's required pre-scheme).
Managers should explore all options, but be aware that these facilities are unlikely to be long-lasting, nor cover the full extent of lost income.
5) Litigation Finance
A perhaps unfamiliar option, here clients or the firm take funding from a third party to cover legal bills. Funding can be structured so that it is non-recourse so is neither on the client's nor the firm's balance sheets. This method guarantees payments to firms in the short term and may add a competitive edge in winning work today and for the future.
There are few downsides for the law firm providing they ensure a reputable funder is introduced to their client, to protect valuable relationships. Firms may seek to introduce such funding on a case by case basis or engage firm wide on a portfolio of cases.
Law firm leaders are undoubtedly considering all the options available to them. Whilst familiar levers will initially rise to the top of the list, thought should be given to those that firms may yet have fully engaged with.
Litigation funding is likely to be one of these. And with such funders in the UK having raised significant sums in recent years, support is likely to be available at both the speed and quantum that firms need to both shore up for today and ensure the firm is on a solid footing for tomorrow. When considering all the options for immediate cash needs, leaders should keep an eye on longer term impact, in both financial and reputational terms.
Louis Young is managing director at U.K. litigation funder Augusta
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 AllWhat to Expect From Teresa Ribera, the EU‘s New Competition Commissioner
6 minute readTrending Stories
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