Tough Topics: Challenging Office Conversations
 

Tips for Staying Competitive in a Client-Driven Market

To maintain profitable growth while continuing to attract the best talent, firms must evaluate their offerings.

By Jacob Morvay
February 2025
 

Today's landscape for delivering legal services is rapidly changing. Clients have clearer expectations on costs of services, firms are racing to combine and control market share, and the technology and people investments necessary to remain competitive continue to grow. This changing environment necessitates that law firms reassess multiple traditional practices, including traditional pricing (i.e., the billable hour) and historical views toward treating engagements as projects to be proactively managed.

Historically, attorneys and other timekeepers bill clients hourly for legal services. Overhead costs — primarily real estate and support staff — were recovered as a small component of the hourly rate. However, the need to incorporate both advanced technology — and more importantly, the people who can best utilize that technology — has introduced new costs that cannot be directly billed. As a result, firms must rethink how they price their services — or if they can continue to offer the same services.

The approach of incorporating overhead into the billable hour is becoming increasingly untenable, especially when clients do not directly perceive the value of these additional costs. Moreover, technological advancements and evolving client expectations are driving greater efficiency. This efficiency reduces billable hours and consequently, revenue generated under the traditional model. The rapid expansion of e-billing has given clients immense data sets to evaluate firms against each other. Clients are able to determine their own benchmarks for cost, time of delivery, rates and leverage — and are holding firms to those benchmarks.

Clients know it will take less time and more junior staff to complete tasks and are using that information to make business decisions. According to Dolapo Olushola-Uwaifo, Director, Legal Process Engineering at Baker Donelson, “The more clients know there are other firms that are faster and cheaper, the more work [firms who are] resistant [to change] will lose." This is why moving a firm’s existing portfolio of work to a fixed or alternative-fee model is not enough. Law firms must do more than merely adjust their pricing strategies; they need to reevaluate their service offerings entirely.

STAYING PROFITABLE

To maintain profitable growth while continuing to attract the best talent, firms must evaluate their offerings to determine which services can be provided through a competitive and intentional pricing program. This may mean divesting from practices where this is not feasible, while investing in others that are currently lacking. Firms will need to prioritize their client relationships over their internal personnel to adjust to this new reality. For example, IP prosecution work continues to have declining rates and margin as firms compete on price. Improving leverage to less expensive billable resources is not enough to be competitive in this area. A firm needs significant investment in legal project management personnel and technology to deliver high quality work at competitive prices.

Partner compensation models based on billable hours and yearly earnings distribution, neither support the long-term investments required for significant technological advancements, nor the opportunity to “invest” in new practice areas that would create short term losses for the potential of long-term gains.

The shift toward alternative pricing necessitates a shifting culture concerning compensation structures. Alex McNally, Legal Project Manager at McCarter & English LLP, notes “cultural acceptance has been difficult because partners closely guard client relationships. [For that to change,] there needs to be an open door for administrative specialists to bridge the gap."

Opening that door requires the alignment of incentives through the partner compensation model. Concurrently, firms are also selling work that is higher rate/higher margin that requires less technology and more detailed legal analysis. Partner compensation models based on billable hours and yearly earnings distribution neither support the long-term investments required for significant technological advancements, nor the opportunity to “invest” in new practice areas that would create short term losses for the potential of long-term gains.

Not all practices are created equal. Workers' compensation practices and merger and acquisition practices have different value propositions to clients. That’s not to say one is better than the other; rather, that clients value them differently. Firms can make as much — if not more — selling commodity work, if they do so with the right organizational and incentive structure.

The structure that supports a profitable practice with more commodity work will necessarily be different than the structure for “bet the company” work. Firms have three decisions:

  • Pick one: If the firm does not want to have more than one compensation structure for its partners, they should invest in the practice type that is most suitable for their current partnership and client base and divest in the other. This will allow them to maximize profitability and success in their chosen area.

  • Stick with both, with some modifications: Although more difficult, this option allows firms to continue serving clients broadly, without divesting from practices. Law firms will have to accept that some partners and practice areas generate revenue and profit on time, whereas others do so on efficiency. For those in the latter, a new compensation and staffing structure must be developed to allow for the same level of profitability and partner compensation as the former.

  • Stay the course: Not making either change prioritizes current culture over long-term business planning. Firms should identify which practices are most valuable to them and be prepared to defend them in the marketplace. The risks here are significant. As McNally says, “staying the course often prioritizes comfort over progress, but failing to evolve can lead to stagnation and lost opportunities, especially when the industry is embracing new ways of working.”

EDUCATING CLIENTS 

The impact of these changes varies with firm size. Small firms often have the agility to implement new technologies and innovative pricing models quickly, allowing for swift decision-making and the ability to pivot strategies without the encumbrance of extensive bureaucratic processes. However, they may lack the capital resources necessary for substantial investments in technology and specialized personnel.

Conversely, large firms typically have access to greater financial resources, enabling them to invest heavily in advanced technologies and expert staff. However, they contend with complex organizational structures that can slow the adoption of new practices. The scale of implementing change across a large firm can be daunting, requiring careful planning and consensus-building among numerous stakeholders.

Implementing these changes also requires firms to educate their clients about the value added through technological investments and alternative service delivery models. Clients asking for fixed fees or other alternatives will not create the opportunity for success. Firms must identify services that can be offered through a portfolio of offerings and use that strategically to sell into the marketplace.

The legal industry's landscape is shifting, and law firms must adapt by rethinking both their pricing strategies and service offerings. By embracing alternative pricing models, investing in technology, accepting failure and adjusting compensation structures to support innovation, firms can position themselves for sustained competitiveness in the future.

Also in This Issue

Back to Top