Problems › Corporate Strategy Consulting › Law Firms
Most people who go looking for corporate strategy have a business-unit question, and the two have opposite answers. This page works through it for law firms specifically — including an unedited excerpt from a real analysis of a law firm.
Most people who go looking for corporate strategy have a business-unit question, and the two have opposite answers. Law firms carry a specific bind here — 19 of 28 equity partners aged 55 or over with no formal lateral hire programme or associate-to-partner track for eight years. Until that is priced, 82 % realisation will keep moving for reasons nobody can attribute, and the debate about return on capital by unit will stay a matter of opinion.
The distinction is not academic. Corporate strategy asks where to play: which markets and businesses to hold, what to buy, what to sell, how capital moves between units, and what the corporate centre does that justifies its cost. Business-unit strategy asks how to win: positioning, pricing, segment, cost structure, the specific competitor taking the specific customer. Both are legitimate; they use different evidence and produce different decisions.
The reason they get confused is that the symptom is often identical. Flat consolidated revenue looks the same whether the cause is one underperforming unit or a portfolio that has drifted into three businesses with no relationship to each other. The test is what happens when you disaggregate: if performance is uniform across units, you have a competitive problem in a single market and the portfolio view will not find it. If the average is being made by one unit carrying two, you have a portfolio problem and no amount of competitive analysis inside the weak units will fix it.
The second thing corporate strategy is for, and the one most often skipped, is the parenting question — what the centre adds. A corporate centre earns its cost either by allocating capital better than the market would, by supplying a capability the units could not buy alone, or by imposing a discipline the units would not impose on themselves. If it does none of those, it is a tax on the units, and the honest strategic answer may be to shrink it rather than to redirect it.
Corporate Strategy & Transformation (catalog id t5) runs the portfolio arithmetic — return on capital by unit, contribution against capital consumed, the overhead each unit actually carries — and produces the allocation view. Where the answer turns out to be a single-market competitive question, it will say so and point at the narrower analysis rather than dressing a positioning problem in portfolio language.
These three together are the signature. One on its own usually points somewhere else.
✓ The group result is flat and the units inside it are not moving together
✓ Nobody can state what the corporate centre does that a unit could not buy
✓ Capital is allocated roughly in proportion to last year rather than to return
The move that usually makes it worse. Running a portfolio review on a company that is really one business, which produces a recommendation to divest the part that was about to become the answer.
It is for you if you run or finance a law firm and the group result is flat and the units inside it are not moving together. It is the situation where the numbers are available but nobody has put them in an order that produces a decision.
It is not for you if Percision is the wrong tool if you already know the answer and only need execution capacity, or if the business is pre-revenue — then the constraint is evidence about the market, not analysis of your own figures. Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library. Also wrong if you need facilitation, politics, or someone to sit with a lender or buyer. Those are human jobs.
Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library.
Below is an excerpt from a real run of this analysis on a law firm. It is a sample profile rather than a customer, and it is unedited engine output — this is the format you get, on your own numbers.
The subject is Ashgrove Legal LLP, a sample company profile used for testing rather than a customer — £24.8 m gross revenue from five practice groups.
Excerpt from a real Percision run · Cost Reduction & Efficiency · sample company profile
The move. Scale the only practice hitting 88 % realisation to fund its own growth and close the succession gap.
| Investment required | £240 k (remaining FY2026 discretionary cap after £180 k IT commitment) |
| Expected return | 1.4–1.6× cash-on-cash within 24 months at current realisation rates. |
| Revenue, year 1 | £25.4–25.7 m firm-wide (+£0.6–0.9 m incremental) |
| Revenue, year 2 | £26.5–27.1 m firm-wide (+£1.1–1.3 m incremental from B&F segment) |
| Revenue, year 3 | £27.8–28.6 m firm-wide (+£1.3–1.5 m incremental) |
| Exit criteria | Strategy must be reversed if, within 18 months, segment revenue has not reached £2.4 m annualised OR cumulative net profit contribution is below £150 k, OR if any lateral hire’s personal billings fall below 1 200 hours in any rolling 6-month period. |
This is one move out of a full analysis. Read a complete report — every page, no email required.
This question routes to Corporate Strategy & Transformation, one of 29 engagements the platform runs. For law firms it works through 82 % realisation, 68 % utilisation, £184 k profit per equity partner and 112 lock-up days, then produces the sequence rather than a list of options — which move first, what it funds, and the observation that would say the sequence is wrong.
You watch the analysis get built before paying anything. Read a complete report here if you would rather see the depth first.
Corporate strategy decides which businesses to be in and how capital moves between them. Business strategy decides how to win inside one of them. A single-market company has no corporate strategy question worth paying for — it has a competitive one. A group with three units and one balance sheet has both, and answering them in the wrong order is the common failure.
A portfolio review from a large firm is commonly £150k–£500k for eight to twelve weeks; boutiques and independents do narrower versions for £40k–£120k. The variance is driven almost entirely by how much primary data collection is in scope. If your own finance system can already produce contribution and capital by unit, most of that cost is buying analysis of numbers you already hold.
As a summary, yes; as a decision rule, no. Growth and share are two of the variables that matter and they are the easiest two to obtain, which is why the matrix persists. It becomes misleading when a unit with modest share is the one generating the cash that funds everything else, and the grid says to divest it. Use it to organise the conversation, then decide on return against capital consumed.
Materially, yes. 19 of 28 equity partners aged 55 or over with no formal lateral hire programme or associate-to-partner track for eight years — which changes both the diagnosis and the order of the fixes. The metrics that decide it here are 82 % realisation, 68 % utilisation, £184 k profit per equity partner, and an answer built on industry-general benchmarks will usually point at the wrong one first.
Less than most people expect. Your last twelve months of revenue and cost split the way you already split it, plus whatever you hold on 82 % realisation and 68 % utilisation. The analysis is explicit about what it is assuming where your data stops, which is more useful than waiting for numbers you may never have.
Percision is the wrong tool if you already know the answer and only need execution capacity, or if the business is pre-revenue — then the constraint is evidence about the market, not analysis of your own figures. Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library. Also wrong if you need facilitation, politics, or someone to sit with a lender or buyer. Those are human jobs.
Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library.
Describe the situation in your own words and we will tell you which analysis answers it — before you sign up for anything.
Describe my situation →Prefer to skip ahead? Go straight to the free diagnostic.