Problems › Should We Hire or Outsource? › Law Firms
The test is not cost per fee earner. It is whether the capability sits close enough to the matters billed by the five practice groups that owning it moves realisation or lock-up days. What makes this harder for law firms is structural: 19 of 28 equity partners aged 55 or over with no formal lateral hire programme or associate-to-partner track for eight years. Any credible answer therefore has to hold 82 % realisation and 68 % utilisation in the same view, which is exactly where most internal analysis stops because the two live in different systems.
The test is not cost per fee earner. It is whether the capability sits close enough to the matters billed by the five practice groups that owning it moves realisation or lock-up days. What makes this harder for law firms is structural: 19 of 28 equity partners aged 55 or over with no formal lateral hire programme or associate-to-partner track for eight years. Any credible answer therefore has to hold 82 % realisation and 68 % utilisation in the same view, which is exactly where most internal analysis stops because the two live in different systems.
Hire-versus-outsource is usually argued on hourly rates, which is the least decisive input. An outsourced function is generally cheaper when utilisation sits at 68 % and more expensive once volume pushes realisation toward 82 %, so the honest comparison depends on the fee-earner forecast equity partners must produce anyway.
The decisive question is proximity to what the firm actually sells. Capabilities that touch the client experience of the matters charged for, or that accumulate knowledge across the practice groups, are worth owning even at a premium. Everything else is a purchasing decision.
The third factor is variance. Owning a function buys control over quality and timing that affects the 112 lock-up days and the £184 k profit per equity partner; outsourcing buys flexibility. Which matters more depends on whether clients notice the variance in delivery.
These three together are the signature. One on its own usually points somewhere else.
✓ The debate among equity partners is conducted entirely on hourly rates for support roles.
✓ Utilisation of any proposed new fee earner is assumed rather than derived from the current 68 % figure.
✓ The function under discussion touches client matters in one of the five practice groups.
The move that usually makes it worse. Outsourcing a function that accumulates knowledge across practice groups, which is cheaper every year and weaker every year.
It is for you if you run or finance a law firm and the debate is being conducted entirely on hourly rates. 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 · Pricing Strategy · 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 Organizational Alignment Model, 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.
At the utilisation where fully loaded internal cost falls below the external rate for the same output. Calculate that break-even point explicitly — it is usually lower than people assume and the debate ends there.
Anything where the accumulated knowledge is part of what you sell. Losing that is not a cost line, it is a slow reduction in what you are able to charge for.
By variance rather than by average. Outsourced work is often comparable on average and wider in spread, which matters exactly as much as your customers notice it.
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.
English · Español · Deutsch · Português · Français · Italiano · Nederlands · 日本語 · 한국어 · 中文 · Polski · Svenska · Türkçe · العربية · Tiếng Việt · ไทย · हिन्दी · עברית