Problems › We Do Not Know Which Products Make Money › Law Firms
Every law firm has a practice group that everyone assumes is profitable, and it is usually the one being subsidised by the others. 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.
Every law firm has a practice group that everyone assumes is profitable, and it is usually the one being subsidised by the others. 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.
Practice-group profit is genuinely hard because most costs sit with non-fee earners and support functions, and the usual allocation by gross revenue quietly guarantees the answer. Allocating shared overhead in proportion to revenue makes high-revenue groups look expensive and low-revenue groups look efficient, which is precisely backwards when the low-revenue group shows lower realisation or keeps fee earners on lower utilisation.
A workable approach allocates only what is genuinely traceable to a practice group, such as dedicated fee-earner costs, and leaves the rest unallocated. You end up with contribution by group and one honest pool of shared cost, which is far more useful than a fully-absorbed number that nobody trusts when lock-up days vary across groups.
The result is usually uncomfortable. In most portfolios a minority of groups carries the whole firm, and at least one long-standing group has been losing money for years with equity partners assuming otherwise.
These three together are the signature. One on its own usually points somewhere else.
✓ Profitability is quoted only as firm-wide profit per equity partner
✓ No practice group has been closed or materially reduced in years
✓ Equity partners give different answers about which groups cover their own overhead
The move that usually makes it worse. Fully absorbing overhead into practice groups by revenue share, which produces a precise number built on an arbitrary rule and gets defended because it looks rigorous.
It is for you if you run or finance a law firm and product profitability is quoted as a company-wide gross margin. 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 · Customer Value Architecture · 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 Matrix Strategy, 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.
Almost never for the decision at hand. Traceable costs plus an unallocated pool gets you the ranking, and the ranking is what you act on. Full ABC is a project that frequently outlives the decision that prompted it.
Say so explicitly and price the support. A loss-making line that genuinely pulls profitable revenue is a marketing cost with a name, which is a fine thing to be — as long as somebody decided it.
Annually, and after any significant mix change. The ranking is more stable than the numbers, so the exercise gets cheaper each time.
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