Advertisements

Protecting a Law Firm’s Crown Jewels


English: Replicas of Polish crown jewels, made...

English: Replicas of Polish crown jewels, made in 2003. Polski: Repliki polskich klejnotów koronacyjnych wykonane w 2003 roku. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Jerome Kowalski

Kowalski & Associates

June, 2012

 

The problem with the law firm business model, we are told repeatedly, is that its principal assets, namely, its productive partners, go down the elevator every night and may not return the next day. The issue arises out of our arrival to an era of law firm partners as free agents and a lack of institutional loyalty, a subject about which there is much railing.

But, those partners who take the elevator down and out and don’t return the next day are taking with them valuable assets that are the property of the law firm and which law firms as well their lenders and landlords need now consider preserving and protecting.  I refer to unfinished business that law firm partners take with them to new law firms. The simple fact is that the profits derived from unfinished business of a client of law firm partnership is the partnership’s asset, just as are the outstanding accounts receivable, work in process, furniture, artwork and equipment.  And, I’m not just referring to law firms in dissolution. These are recoverable assets of healthy thriving law firms.

One of the results of the recent spate of law firm bankruptcies was to alert lawyers that upon the dissolution of a law firm, profits from unfinished business can be clawed back under the doctrine now known as Jewel v Boxer. Judge Colleen McMahon of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, in a much publicized well reasoned and articulate opinion in the Coudert case explained the basis of the unfinished business doctrine. The essence of her ruling is that “A departing partner is not free to walk out of his firm’s office carrying a Jackson Pollack painting he ripped off the wall of the reception area.” Profits from unfinished business are akin to the Pollack painting and departing partners are statutorily obligated to return both the painting removed from the wall and profits from unfinished business. This has been the law in New York for a century.

Under the Uniform Partnership Act, absent an agreement to the contrary, a partnership goes into dissolution upon the death or withdrawal of a partner.   Thus, all modern partnership agreements typically provide for the continuation of the business of the partnership upon the death or withdrawal of a partner and these agreements go on to describe the rights, entitlements and obligations of the partnership and the partner on a going forward basis.  The overwhelming majority of law firm partnership agreements are completely silent on the issue of unfinished business that follows a partner that withdraws from a law firm. But it is completely within the fabric of the partnership fiduciary relationship, as articulated in Meinhard v Salmon, and further expounded upon by Judge McMahon, for law firms to require departing partners to account to the partnership for profits from unfinished business even absent a dissolution of the partnership. Moreover, the agreement can further obligate a withdrawing partner to inform his or her new law firm that profits from unfinished business belong to his or her former law firm. Fancy that. I know this is probably a shocker to most readers, but it’s clearly the law.

Intuitively, most lawyers will simply shudder when reading this. Their reaction, when I have previously spoken of this, is to instinctively say that this can’t be so; it constitutes an impermissible restriction on a lawyer’s ability to practice law, unbridled by covenants not to compete.  The Jewel v Boxer line of cases, as well as the long parade of authority cited by Judge McMahon makes clear that the unfinished business doctrine does not trample on that issue, even in New York which is completely restrictive on the prohibition barring any form of covenants not to compete and certainly not in states like California which does permit some restrictions in limited circumstances.

We certainly now know from Coudert and Dewey & LeBoeuf that principal assets of a law firm are unfinished business (although, in fairness, these claims were pursued in a host of other major law firm bankruptcies, with a tad less fanfare).   For the first time of which I am aware, in Dewey, the firm’s secured creditors have actually purported to take a security interest in the proceeds of unfinished business claims.

Thus, the question now emerges: Why shouldn’t law firms include in their partnership agreements provisions requiring withdrawing partners to account to the firm for unfinished business even absent dissolution?  The ancillary question is why wouldn’t lenders and law firm landlords mandate such provisions as a condition of borrowing or tenancy?  The short answer is that in due course, these provisions are likely to be standard fare.

Let’s turn to the likely effects on lateral partner recruiting.

It is a standard practice in lateral partner recruiting for a law firm to prepare a pro forma analysis of income and expenses derived from a lateral candidate. In analyzing this pro forma, law firms make informed decisions as to the likely profitability of any candidate. With the recent unfortunate spate of law firm failures and the increased recourse to Jewel v Boxer recoveries, I have regularly counseled every law firm client to include in its pro forma examination a projection of any possible unfinished business remittances and to pay particular heed to this analysis when   there is evidence that the candidate is from a law firm suspected to be in difficult financial circumstances. In doing so, it must be remembered that Jewel v Boxer remittances are only for the profits derived from the unfinished business. Even the former partner can bill for his time in a unique metric, as Judge McMahon noted, based not on standard hourly rates, but based on his or her “efforts, skill, and diligence.” Thus, neither the former partner nor his or her new firm is forced into indentured servitude.   They are simply barred from deriving a profit for any of the particular matters the new partner brings along with him or her.

This last point require some emphasis: it is only the particular discrete matters that fall into the rubric of unfinished business. As Judge McMahon said in Coudert:

“’ Unfinished business” must be distinguished from “finished business” – business that has been completed prior to dissolution (the merger done and documented; the lawsuit tried to verdict or settled). If a firm has finished a piece of business but has not collected its fee, in whole or in part, the resulting receivable is, obviously, an asset of the firm. If the firm liquidates, the fee has to be collected for the benefit of the members of the firm in liquidation. Jackson v. Hunt, Hill & Betts, 7 N.Y.2d 180, 183 (1959). 23 “New business” is an entirely new contract or engagement to do a piece of work. New business that is contracted for and undertaken only after a partnership dissolves – even business from a client of the dissolved firm – is not an asset of the dissolved firm, because a partnership has no more than an expectation of obtaining future business from a client. For that reason, the attorney who conducts the business and collects the resulting fee owes no duty to his former partners to account for any profit he may earn. Stem, 227 N.Y. at 550; see also Conolly v Thuillez, 26 A.D.3d 720, 723 (3d Dep’t 2006); In re Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison LLP, 408 B.R. 318, 333 (Bnkr. N.D. Cal. 2009) (applying California law). Retainers from former clients on new matters – even matters, like appeals, that are related to finished representations – have been treated as “new” business and are not subject to the duty to account. See, e.g., Talley, 100 N.Y.S.2d at 117-18 (no duty to account for fees earned on appeals from matters originally handled as partnership business).5

Between “finished business” and “new business” lies unfinished business: executory contracts to perform services, begun but not fully performed by the partnership on the date of its dissolution. Unfinished business is presumptively treated as a partnership asset subject to distribution.”

 

Thus, the new firm must make an informed decision as to whether it is prepared to make an investment in the new partner and his or her clients until it can start earning a profit on those clients coming along.  The cost of the investment is largely an opportunity cost; namely, the lost opportunity to bill profitable time on different clients and matters.

Will this dampen the lateral partner market?  Quite likely, but, frankly, not in a material way, I suspect and certainly not long term as such contractual provisions begin to metastasize, at the instance of lenders and landlords, as well as law firm leadership, separately incentivized to dampen the enthusiasm of profitable and productive partners to seek a higher bidder. In due course, there will likely develop an open market in which firms will both be remitting and collecting unfinished business remittances.  And, I am sure, the market will ultimately require law firms to simply arrive at negotiated deals early on as valuable free agents rise to their highest level and less productive partners eased out the door.

These results are all inevitable. Well informed lawyers will counsel lenders and landlords on these issues and these clients, who have bargaining leverage will require unfinished business recoveries as a staple of law firm partnership agreements. Law firms will being compelled to pay unfinished business remittances will in turn take steps to keep its assets corralled by requiring the same of its partners.

In coming months, law firm leaders will be sitting across the table from lenders and landlords requiring law firms to include unfinished recoveries in their partnership agreements. Partners will be presented with proposed amendments to their partnership agreements containing these provisions.

Now is the time to begin considering your bargaining position.

© Jerome Kowalski, June, 2012. All Rights reserved.

Jerry Kowalski is the founder of Kowalski & Associates, a consulting firm serving the legal profession exclusively. Jerry is a regular contributor to a variety of publications and is a frequent (always engaging and often humorous) speaker to a variety of forums. Jerry can be reached at jkowalski@kowalskiassociates.com or at 212 832 9070, Extension 310

 

Advertisements

Citibank’s Fourth Quarter Report on Law Firm Profitability: Bleak, But, on the Bright Side, That’s As Good As It Gets


Citigroup Center
Citigroup Center (Photo credit: LifeSupercharger)

Jerome Kowalski

Kowalski & Associates

February, 2012  

                                                                   

Don’t have enough to fret about?

Citibanks’ report for law firms for the fourth quarter of 2011 is out for and there is little in it that brings cheer. It also gives some us some sense of prescience in that our 2012 forecasts seem to be being realized. Earlier observations on Citibank’s third quarter report and its mid year report, all read in sequence, paint a rather unhappy portrait.

Consistent with what we all have all been seeing in recent weeks as law firms begin announcing results for 2011, last year generally saw a barely perceptible rise in revenues (4.1%) and continued rising expenses. The continued escalation on the expense side is of some serious concern as law firm managers continue to devote substantial energy to irradiate an ever metastasizing wave of expenses, with the wave of rising expenses seemingly unstoppable.

Here is some of the other disturbing news:

  • Citibank noted that in the second half of 2011, demand for legal services, “particularly in transactional work, withered away and has yet to bloom again.” In our view, we do not see transactional work flowering soon because of the moribund capital markets, the decline in asset value and the business world’s disinclination to take risk in uncertain times.
  • The report notes that profits per equity partner at the law firms surveyed rose an average of 3.3% in 2011. However, by hewing to the PPEP artifice, the report does not report how much of this increased profit was derived by de-equitazation, “shortening of the collection cycle,” expense deferrals or other accounting legerdemain. While Citi did report that “equity partner head count grew only marginally, reinforcing the view … it has become a lot harder to become an equity partner and remain an equity partner.”
  • While hourly rates increased slightly, realizations declined. Of course, that’s like the law firm partner who, when asked what his hourly rates are replies “$1,000 an hour when I can get it, but that’s rare, otherwise it’s $450.”
  • Headcount grew marginally more than demand, resulting in a decline in productivity.
  • In order to get to the modest increase in PPEP, law firms slogged the living daylights out of their accounts receivable. Well, that’s good for the take home pay for partners in 2011, but it adds to the challenges of 2012, since both demand is weak and there is less A/R in inventory to turn into cash in the current year.

What does this all mean for the current year? Citi tells us “all said, not a bad year and we suspect likely to be the new definition of a good year for the legal industry at least for the foreseeable future.”  In other words, this is about as good as it gets. By that, could it be that like Jack Nicholson’s character, could we find happiness in this somewhat addled state?

Citi is also telling law firms that it’s time to trim the herd again in order to increase productivity and realizations. So, I am afraid that we will see another round of layoffs, lateral moves, de-equitizations, and mandatory retirements. If you are a partner in law firm, pay very close attention to how your firm is doing, since there is a strong likelihood that we will sadly see some law firm failures; you need to be prepared and not caught by surprise.   And if you are a vendor or service provider to law firms, look for cutbacks and a longer remittance cycle.

© Jerome Kowalski, February, 2012. All Rights reserved.

Jerry Kowalski is the founder of Kowalski & Associates, a consulting firm serving the legal profession exclusively. Jerry is a regular contributor to a variety of publications and is a frequent (always engaging and often humorous) speaker to a variety of forums. Jerry can be reached at jkowalski@kowalskiassociates.com or at 212 832 9070, Extension 310.

Trending for Law Firms in 2012: What to Expect This Year


Trending for Law Firms in 2012: What to Expect This Year.

Trending for Law Firms in 2012: What to Expect This Year


United (States) Parcel Service.

Image by matt.hintsa via Flickr

                                                                                      Jerome Kowalski

                                                                                      Kowalski & Associates

                                                                                      January, 2012

 

Thirty items affecting the legal profession that are guaranteed to dominate the headlines in 2012

It is that time of year when you are entitled to know what to expect for this new year.  Accordingly, here is what the hot trends for 2012 will be:

  •  Continuing decline in legal spend on outside counsel.
  • As law firms continue to more efficiently and timely bill for matters and, the trend of law firms whittling away at their inventories (WIP), while not being able to replace that inventory because of the lethal combination of  reduced headcounts and  reduction in the legal spend, lenders to law firms will require more stringent reporting and will in some instances, reduce available credit lines.
  • Deleveraging of work with partners and other senior lawyers billing increased hours and the trend towards the inverted pyramid model continuing.
  • Law firms establishing subsidiaries to engage in services complementary to their services, including e-discovery, document review, legal staffing services, investment advisory services for high net worth clients and the like.
  • Congress, the courts and the judicial conference will make serious progress about modifying e-discovery rules, bringing down their current gravity defying costs as well as dampening down the torrent of spoliation claims and the attendant Herculean tasks companies need to take to avoid these claims.
  • Given weakening retail sales and decreased demand for most commercial real estate, buyers will emerge to take advantage of attractive pricing on some properties, perceiving real value opportunities.  Private equity funds will move in to this arena in a big way.
  • Increased  focus on collaboration, within the law firm, vertically with clients and horizontally with vendors of support services and co-counsel. Extranets will be enhanced and new technologies will emerge to provide greater transparency and real time feedback and collaboration.
  • More paperless offices.  With the bulk of communications now being electronic and the expected decline in timely services from the United States Postal Service likely to increase the trend of communicating electronically, law firms will be incentivized to go completely paperless. Incoming snail mail will be scanned and digitized. The huge cost of storing paper documents will evaporate.
  • Increased use of outside facilities management companies for mail, fax, reproduction, IT, bookkeeping and legal records departments.
  • Law firms will make more investments in technology than in people. The IT hotspots are knowledge management, software to farm information for the purpose of responding to RFP’s, making an AFA proposal, based on prior similar work handled by the firm and for project management purposes.
  • Every lawyer will tuck an IPad under his or her arm and no lawyer will attend a meeting without opening one. Continued development of apps for lawyers will simply make this tool not only essential, but a lawyer not having an IPad at the ready, risks a serious loss of credibility.
  • Tough times often brings out the worst in some folks.  Last year’s small spike in BigLaw partners and even other law firm personnel who engaged in defalcations of client funds will sadly probably continue.  Look for more headlines of such tales.  Law firms will be well served to now tighten controls and checks and balances regarding client finds.
  • There will be periodic announcements by a partner at a BigLaw firm stating “after 25 rewarding and wonderful years with my former firm, I have decided to open a solo practice so that I can work more closely with my clients.”  Sometimes these announcements will be sincere and genuine.  Sometimes these announcements really mean “I’ve been on the job market for almost a year since I was asked to leave my former firm.  I haven’t been able to find a new slot and my firm wants me out right now, so I may as well give this a try.”
  • Virtual law firms, such as Clearspire and Rimon will continue to grow and gain real traction and increased market credibility.

I am quite sure that we have been fairly thorough and inclusive. If you think we left anything off the list, please let us know by commenting below. Similarly, if you think we are wrong about any of the above, post a comment.

It’s going to be a challenging year.  Please fasten your seatbelts, hold on to the handrail and make sure that your arms and legs do not extend outside your car. We are in for an interesting year.

© Jerome Kowalski, January, 2012.  All Rights Reserved.

 Jerry Kowalski, who provides consulting services to law firms, is also a dynamic (and often humorous) speaker on topics of interest to the profession and can be reached at jkowalski@kowalskiassociates.com .

I Know You Hate Keeping Time Sheets, but Even in the New Era You Must Still Do So and Here’s Why


I Know You Hate Keeping Time Sheets, but Even in the New Era You Must Still Do So and Here’s Why.

What are the Most Significant Legaltech Changes You Have Seen During Your Careers?


What are the Most Significant Legaltech Changes You Have Seen During Your Careers?.

The Key for Law Firm Growth and Survival for the Coming Years is Contingent on Mastering Collaboration


The Key for Law Firm Growth and Survival for the Coming Years is Contingent on Mastering Collaboration.

%d bloggers like this: