Key takeaways:

• • • Ways of achieving growth has changed 鈥� Sustainable growth now depends less on raw revenue and more on improving income per partner through smarter leverage, intentional service mix, and disciplined pricing.

    • Proactive firms will be better positioned 鈥� Firms that adopt data-driven pricing, bundled offerings, and subscription models will be better positioned to communicate value, raise fees confidently, and protect margins.

    • Differentiators are shifting 鈥� Leadership depth, culture, and succession planning are emerging as decisive differentiators as demographics shift, private equity reshapes the tax market, and next-generation partners step into control.

Tax, audit & accounting firms are still growing, but not all that growth is reaching the bottom line 鈥� indeed, 2026 is shaping up as a separate or be separated moment for many tax firm leaders. To sustain income per partner while the market shifts, firm leaders need to be far more intentional about how they grow, price, staff, and position their tax practices.

Here are five important ways that tax firm leaders can ensure their bottom-line growth keep pace with their top-line revenue:

1. Be deliberate about how you grow

Revenue is rising, but margins are under pressure. For example, for firms with revenue of more than $2 million, revenue grew 7.9%, yet income per equity partner (IPP) increased only 3.2%. This may imply that although firms are bringing in more money, the remaining profits available to distribute to equity partners isn鈥檛 growing at the same rate. This could mean that it鈥檚 costing firms more to generate more revenue possibly because expenses are eating into margins.

Meanwhile, 13.9% of total growth for firms whose revenue is more than $2 million now comes from mergers, and for firms with revenue of more than $20 million, more than one-fifth of growth is merger-driven.

For growth strategy, leaders should clarify their organic growth plans in light of this robust M&A drive, deciding when acquisitions are truly about capacity, specialization, or geography and when they are merely propping up lagging organic growth.

Leaders need to protect IPP metrics by focusing relentlessly on revenue per partner and revenue per person as primary levers, rather than chasing top-line growth for its own sake. Leaders also need to build optionality 鈥� with private equity, mega-firm consolidators, and independents all active, factors such as succession, capital, and ownership design have become core strategic decisions that can no longer be left to chance.

2. Treat pricing as a growth discipline

In the 成人VR视频 Institute’s pricing report for tax, audit & accounting firms, 64% of decision-makers said their firms saw revenue increases, but only 45% reported increased profits 鈥� a clear indication of margin compression. Further, just about 1-in-5 professionals said they feel 鈥渉ighly confident鈥� that their firm鈥檚 current pricing reflects the expertise of its professionals.

To be sure, key pricing work now involves moving beyond what the market will bear. While hourly billing still dominates (according to the report firms said over 40% of client engagements are billed on an hourly basis) 鈥� value-aligned methods such as fixed fees, subscriptions, and bundled packages are strongly associated with higher pricing confidence and a firm’s greater ability to raise fees.

To excel in this area, tax firm leaders need to use data rather than their gut. Although only 30% of respondents said their firm regularly benchmark their pricing against competitors, leaders overwhelmingly say better market intelligence would increase pricing confidence. Also, firms should expand subscription and bundle pricing options, since respondents form subscription-billing firms report significantly higher confidence that their pricing reflects value. Indeed, many firms using bundled packages have raised prices 10% to 24% or more over the past two years.

3. Build a capacity model that scales

The Rosenberg data is blunt: The fastest path to higher income per partner is not logging more partner hours 鈥� it is using smart leverage and stronger rates. Elite tax firms (those with IPP above $800,000) generate roughly $3.9 million in revenue per equity partner and maintain staff-to-partner ratios of around 17:1.

Several capacity dynamics matter in practice. Leverage drives profitability, for example, and those firms that have staff-to-partner ratios above 10 report IPP roughly double that of firms with ratios below 3, even though they may carry higher salary percentages.

Further, outsourcing has become mainstream. More than 4-in-10 firms (42%) with more than $2 million in revenue now outsource full-time equivalent (FTEs) employees, a figure that rises to 63% among firms with more than $ 20 million dollars. Interestingly, turnover has eased to about 11%, the lowest for the industry in years, but expectations have shifted as firms intentionally reduce average billable hours per staff member to prioritize sustainable workloads.

In fact, the key growth question is no longer Can we find the work? but rather Can we design a capacity model 鈥� onshore, offshore, AI-enabled 鈥� that supports higher rates without burning out our people?

4. Formalize strategy, marketing & service mix

Firms with written strategic plans earn about 4.5% more IPP than those without, according to the data, and firms with a formal marketing plan enjoy about 9% higher IPP. The most profitable firms are also more intentional about service mix, tilting toward advisory and financial services.

Growth-enabling practices start with written strategic and marketing plans. Firms that document these plans consistently outperform their peers, particularly when navigating private equity interest, AI adoption, and succession decisions. Many leading tax firms are deliberately shifting from compliance to advisory, reducing their reliance on commodity tax compliance and expanding into higher-value advisory work to drive stronger profitability. These firms are also packaging and communicating value more effectively by bundling compliance and advisory services into tiered packages, which in turn gives them greater ability to raise fees and justify premium positioning in the market.

5. Invest in leadership, culture & succession

Growth without leadership depth is fragile, especially in the tax profession in which the average partner age has remained high. Most recently, however, the average partner age has dipped slightly to about 52 years old as more retirements occur. And female partners now account for roughly one-quarter of partner groups overall, showing progress but also a persistent equity gap.

For many firms, succession remains a primary concern, and leadership-related growth priorities begin with treating succession as strategy, not an HR project. More firms are revisiting buy-in levels, which average around $133,000, and are experimenting with non-equity roles and alternative practice structures to create more flexible pathways to ownership. At the same time, leaders must protect and modernize their firm culture, recognizing that poorly managed PE transactions, rigid return-to-office policies, and underinvestment in technology-forward talent can quickly erode the very engines of growth they depend on.

Additionally, firms are elevating the managing partner role. In larger practices, managing partners鈥� chargeable hours are now meaningfully lower, reflecting an intentional shift toward having that role work on the business 鈥� strategy, talent, pricing, and M&A 鈥� rather than in it.

For tax firm leaders, these five considerations form a practical checklist for 2026 planning. Grounding each strategic initiative in data and taking visible action can help ensure that the next wave of growth shows up not just in revenue, but in sustainable, rising income per partner.

You can download a copy of the 成人VR视频 Institute’s pricing report for tax, audit & accounting firms, here

Key provisions:

• • Permanent and expanded deductions 鈥� OBBBA makes the QBI deduction permanent, creates deductions for tips and overtime, and increases expensing limits for businesses.

  • New caps and phaseouts 鈥� The OBBBA also imposes new limits and phaseouts on itemized deductions, the SALT deduction, and charitable giving, especially affecting high-income individuals.

  • Accelerated sunset for green incentives 鈥� Many energy-related tax credits and deductions will end sooner, so taxpayers should act quickly to benefit.

The recently passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) carries a lot of questions for tax professionals, especially around new tax regulations, deductions, tax credits, and planning strategies. Here are some of the most Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), to address the most pressing questions and provide clear, concise answers to help tax professionals navigate the OBBBA and its implications.

1. How do the new rules for deducting tips and overtime interact with traditional wage and self-employment income, and what substantiation is required for each?

Because the OBBBA provides a deduction for these items, rather than an exclusion from income, tips and overtime pay will initially be lumped in with traditional wage and self-employment income. Taxpayers will then be able to deduct up to $25,000 of reported qualified tips and up to $12,500 ($25,000 for joint filers) of qualified overtime pay. However, both deductions are subject to phaseout rules.

For substantiation purposes, employers must report the amount of qualified tips and/or overtime pay on the worker鈥檚 Form W-2 (for employees) or Form 1099 (for contractors). For qualified tips, the worker鈥檚 occupation also must be reported. In addition, a work-eligible Social Security Number is required for both deductions.

Note that these two deductions do not affect Social Security and Medicare taxes.

2. What are the permanent changes to the Qualified Business Income (QBI) deduction, and how should tax practitioners advise clients with pass-through businesses on long-term planning?

Thanks to the OBBBA, the QBI deduction is now permanent, which offers more stability when planning for QBI optimization. On top of that, starting in 2026, the OBBBA provides a $400 minimum deduction for businesses with at least $1,000 of QBI and increases the phase-in limitation range from $100,000 to $150,000 for joint filers (from $50,000 to $75,000 for other filers).

Tax professionals should continue to monitor wage and property limitations and the specified service trade or business phaseouts. For taxpayers with taxable income near or slightly over the threshold amounts, traditional planning techniques such as bunching income, making deductible retirement plan contributions or Health Saving Account contributions, or contributing to donor-advised funds should be considered to get under the threshold (or at least into the phaseout range).

3. Which changes to the Excess Business Loss limitation most significantly impact owner-operators and professional partnerships, particularly regarding carryforward treatment and bankruptcy?

The OBBBA makes the excess business loss limitation permanent. (Previously, it was set to expire after 2028.) Owner-operators and professional partnerships will now face a permanent cap on business losses; however, excess losses may be carried forward as a net operating loss (NOL), which will retain its character in a bankruptcy setting. Therefore, if a debtor excludes cancellation of debt income under the bankruptcy exception, their tax attributes will have to be reduced, including any NOL carryforwards.

4. How does the increased $15 million estate and gift tax exclusion, effective 2026, transform wealth transfer strategies and generation-skipping plans?

The larger exclusion allows for more tax-free transfers during life or at death. Tax professionals should explore estate planning strategies such as shifting future appreciation of assets through gifting, creating irrevocable trusts, and taking advantage of portability for married couples.

5. What are the new phase-out thresholds, floors, and limitations for itemized deductions and alternative minimum tax (AMT) exemption under the OBBBA, and how will this affect high-net-worth individuals?

For taxpayers in (or approaching) the 37% tax bracket, the OBBBA caps the value of each dollar of itemized deductions at $0.35. Also, itemizers can only deduct charitable contributions exceeding 0.5% of taxable income.

In addition, the OBBBA has permanently extended the increased AMT exemption amounts and phaseout thresholds. Starting in 2026, exemption phaseout thresholds will equal the 2018 levels of $500,000 (for single filers) and $1 million (joint filers), with those amounts being indexed for inflation beginning in 2027. In addition, the phaseout rate for higher-income taxpayers in 2026 increases to 50% from 25%.

High-net-worth individuals will see a reduced benefit from itemized deductions and higher AMT exposure if their income exceeds the applicable threshold. Tax professionals should consider bunching deductions while carefully managing AMT triggers.

6. How should planning change for clients impacted by the temporary State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction cap increase (from 2025 to 2029), and how does the phaseout for higher earners function?

The OBBBA increases the SALT cap to $40,000 ($20,000 for married filing separately) for 2025 and $40,400 for 2026. For tax years beginning after 2026 and before 2030, the cap will be increased by 1% per year. For tax years beginning in 2030, the cap will revert back to $10,000 ($5,000 for married filing separately).

The increased SALT cap is subject to a phasedown once modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) exceeds $500,000 for 2025 and $505,000 for 2026. For years after 2026, the MAGI threshold increases by 1%. Taxpayers who are fully phased down will be capped at $10,000.

Although this is a welcomed change, tax professionals may need to advise some clients to accelerate payments of state and local taxes into years with the higher cap. Also, despite the higher cap, pass-through businesses may still want to make a pass-through entity tax election. This may lower a partner鈥檚 share of self-employment income or allow the business owner to take advantage of the even higher standard deduction under the OBBBA ($31,500 for joint filers in 2025).

7. How do the new charitable deduction provisions for both itemizers and non-itemizers alter year-end giving strategies, and what new floors or caps apply?

Under the OBBBA, itemizers can only deduct charitable contributions exceeding 0.5% of taxable income. Also, the 60% adjusted gross income (AGI) limit for cash gifts to qualified charities applies. However, the OBBBA provides a permanent charitable deduction of up to $1,000 ($2,000 for joint filers) for non-itemizers who donate cash to public charities.

Itemizers should consider bunching gifts to exceed the 0.5% floor. However, tax professionals should determine if the standard deduction plus the new charitable deduction for non-itemizers would be more beneficial than itemizing.

8. For business clients, what are the implications of permanent expensing for capital investments and research & development expenditures on future expansion or M&A plans?

The OBBBA makes permanent 100% bonus depreciation for property acquired and placed in service after January 19, 2025. Also, the Section 179 expensing limit has been increased to $2.5 million (with a $4 million phaseout threshold) starting in 2025. With respect to domestic research & development expenditures, the OBBBA permanently reinstates full expensing for tax years beginning after 2024. The bill also provides special transition rules for small businesses to expense research expenditures for tax years beginning after 2021.

Because many businesses will be able to immediately deduct the full cost of qualifying investments, their after-tax cash flow and return on investment will improve. Also, businesses should consider moving any foreign research activities to the United States so they can take advantage of immediate expensing of related costs. This will encourage investment in equipment, technology, and innovation into the US.

9. Which credits and incentives for green energy and vehicles are sunsetting, and what timing strategies should clients consider to maximize remaining benefits?

Among others, the following popular energy-related credits are scheduled to sunset quicker under the OBBBA:

• • • The clean vehicle credit and the previously-owned clean vehicle credit for vehicles acquired after September 30, 2025.
    • The alternative fuel vehicle refueling property credit, for property placed in service after June 30, 2026.
    • The energy-efficient home improvement credit terminates after December 31, 2025.
    • The residential clean energy credit expires for expenditures after December 31, 2025.
    • The energy-efficient commercial buildings deduction expires for property construction beginning after June 30, 2026.

For clients interested in taking advantage of these energy-related incentives, acquisition and installation of the qualified property should be accelerated before the relevant cut-off dates.

You can find more of our coverage of the impact of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act听丑别谤别

One of the most fundamental concepts of systems engineering is the V model that originated within the aerospace industry in the early 1980s. The idea of the V model is to provide a framework for complex systems analysis and problem-solving. As one would expect, the model is depicted in the shape of the letter V. The left-hand side moving downward includes key actions to be completed 鈥� such as analyzing what the requirements are, what needs to be accomplished, what the constraints are within the existing technology, what requires fixing, and what questions need to be answered.

The next step is to break down the problem into its various elements, which interestingly, is also a common practice of . This is the left-hand side of the V, and once it is broken down, those different pieces typically are assigned out to different teams, for them to examine and work on. Together, they form a team of teams.

At the bottom of the V is the time to gather and analyze the system in its entirety and to reassemble it into a new and coherent whole on the right side of the V. That whole is intentionally more capable, efficient, and resilient than what had existed before. The new system answers the mail for all the requirements, identifies all the interfaces and dependencies among the elements of the solution, and optimizes all the trade-offs. The integrated solution is thoroughly tested coming up the right side of the V.

Along the way, importantly, risk is retired, and margin is built up. What I mean by margin is the margin for error. The idea is that if something small goes wrong 鈥� in a deal, for example, if part of the analysis fails or something has been missed; or in a complex piece of litigation, if a witness’s testimony comes out the wrong way on a particular day 鈥� the margin for error is great enough that the system as a whole does not fail. Over several decades, I have found this to be a highly effective model of problem-solving in complex matters of law, regulation, and business.

Utilizing the V model approach during M&A due diligence

The V model can be a useful tool for demonstrating how systems engineering works in the in the legal field, for instance, starting with M&A. Often, lawyers work to close any disconnects between the various due diligence work streams arising from a potential M&A transaction. In a complex corporate transaction, responsibilities are broken down and actions assigned to separate teams for different diligence areas, including, for example, business development, finance, HR, intellectual property, and technology.

One of the ways that M&A deals can get off track is for those diligence streams to proceed in a disconnected or incoherent way. For that reason, it is important in managing a big deal to bring the teams together and make sure they are staying connected, so that all key interrelationships and patterns are identified.

Another example is identifying relationships between due diligence issues and findings and making an assessment of the target鈥檚 leadership. Observing a pattern in which a particular area is going errant repeatedly, it must be assessed whether the leaders for the target company in that area are really the right people to lead the business, post-acquisition.

A third M&A example is identifying the interfaces between the due diligence findings and deal negotiations. The terms and conditions, ideally, are going to be negotiated based on what the findings are during the diligence process. Sometimes they get disconnected. However, if diligence is tightly coordinated with the negotiation of terms and conditions, a better negotiation process emerges among those on the other side of the deal 鈥� company management and the company鈥檚 own board 鈥� resulting in a better set of deal documents.

Demonstrating systems engineering discipline in complex litigation

Another legal context in which to demonstrate the value of the V model is in complex litigation. Doing up-front legal analysis early is critical to understanding exactly what ultimately will be needed in order to prevail 鈥� whether that be a motion for summary judgment as a defendant, or in preparation for a trial 鈥� all before discovery is entered.

This is part of classic systems engineering, going down the left side of the V to understand all the requirements and what the objectives are before developing a solution. In civil litigation, which is what companies are predominantly involved in, this is typically done through discovery. Systems engineering is a good way of thinking about how to coordinate both defensive and offensive discovery 鈥� that is to say, what facts need to be extracted from the other side. It is perilous to assume in civil litigation that the case can be proved through something potentially received from the other side, so this must be undertaken with care.

Conclusion

Leveraging systems engineering in the anatomy of legal matters is a highly effective way of managing problem-solving. It tends to be most helpful in solving complex, interdependent, often technical problems; often over a longer-term time period, such as that involving major litigation or M&A deals.

Under this discipline, leaders need to bring their teams along to obtain optimal results. As a by-product of solving particular challenges, leaders will be building consensus, resilience, and ultimately common purpose within their organization.

This article was written for Forum magazine by Conrad Everhard and Leonard T. Nuara, Founding Partners of Flatiron Law Group LLP

We are living in the golden age of legal innovation. Not a week goes by without one legal tech start-up or another announcing a big venture capital haul, and large law firms are flooding the zone with messaging about how they are adopting and supporting innovation.

One thing that has not changed, however, is the law firm business model. Traditional law firms keep billing by the hour, increasing their hourly rates 鈥� often at a record pace in some practice areas. If any efficiency is being generated from current innovation initiatives, the cost savings are certainly not being shared with the clients, either through lower rates or through alternative fee arrangements (AFAs).

Indeed, AFAs require a law firm to make two leaps of faith. First, a firm looking to adopt viable AFAs must reimagine the delivery of legal services. Rather than marking up junior labor and selling billable hours the old-fashioned way, law firms would have to figure out how to deliver services at the same level of quality but more efficiently, maximizing profit margin rather than maximizing hours.

Second, firms would have to be willing to share financial risk with the client. All legal work is risky, and some practices, like mergers and acquisitions (M&A), carry acute risks in which negotiating deals can be a lengthy and unpredictable process. Often, the full complexity of a deal does not become known until the parties are deep into their due diligence.

For those law firms willing to make these leaps of faith, recent technology advances coupled with access to cheap computing power are enabling greater automation of many legal tasks, creating more standardized, repeatable processes and greater flexibility in the deployment of counsel. In turn, this opens the door for firms to more readily use AFAs, such as fixed fees for M&A work.

Of course, this pivot requires rethinking the law firm business model and moving away from accumulating billable hours and instead has firms focusing more on impactful inputs and outputs. These impactful inputs are centered more on deploying legal talent when and where it is most needed, rather than maintaining a stable of lawyers who are billing hours. Reimagined outputs focus on both quality and efficiency in closing deals.

Technology as a key enabler

Not surprisingly, technology is a core enabler of these changes. While collaborative workflow tools have become more commonplace in the legal industry, they can do more than simply allowing lawyers to work remotely. When incorporated within a project management framework, they can enable new models of engaging labor that are more akin to a gig economy model 鈥� providing lawyers who have senior-level experience with more agility and flexibility.

Traditional M&A deal flows offer many opportunities to create more efficient workflows.

Similarly, the ability to create bespoke software means many law firms can craft their own technology, including digital deal tools. In the M&A space, there are plenty of contract life cycle management and document management tools out there. Thanks to Moore鈥檚 Law and the rise of SaaS, cheap computing power is now available literally at one鈥檚 fingertips, making it readily accessible to create specialized, proprietary tools with advanced capabilities. It鈥檚 now possible to quickly leapfrog generations of legacy technology and enable new levels of automation.

Traditional M&A deal flows offer many opportunities to create more efficient workflows. The same data is often reused multiple times throughout every step of the deal 鈥� such as in delivering and reviewing due diligence, reviewing representations and warranties, creating and managing schedules, closing checklists, and more. In fact, the process is a constant cycle of reviewing and verifying in which every document is touched four or five times by different people. It is repetitive and time-consuming, and often results in additional charges to the client.

Automation can rationalize and organize this data at every step. Relevant data can be searched quickly with instant status checks and history trails of when a document has been viewed, verified, or modified, and by whom. This can significantly reduce repetitive steps and enable teams to focus on the end goal: delivering the deal as efficiently as possible.

A more flexible labor model

Further, automating and streamlining workflows can make costs more predictable which, in turn, makes use of AFAs more workable as a pricing model.

Adopting AFAs as the default pricing model, instead of just in those cases in which clients insist on it, requires adopting a different mindset. Traditional thinking manages and prices labor to maximize billable hours and labor markup. In contrast, pricing principally with AFAs 鈥� whether fixed fees, fee caps, risk collars, or other methods 鈥� gives firms every incentive to be as efficient as possible, which can benefit both the client and the firm.

Throughout and after the pandemic, many law firms advanced virtual lawyering and acclimated clients to interacting strictly online for certain legal matters. However, beyond enabling remote work, virtual lawyering also enables more flexible models for deploying counsel. With the traditional law firm model, legions of lawyers sit on the balance sheet incurring costs regardless of their utilization. Now, lawyers can be engaged on more of a project management or general contractor model, brought in and assigned as needed to meet the specific needs of each deal.

Automating and streamlining workflows can make costs more predictable which, in turn, makes use of AFAs more workable as a pricing model.

Because large law firms, as a rule, discard senior associates who don鈥檛 show a propensity for generating business, there is an abundant supply of highly trained, artisanal senior lawyers with pedigrees from large, prestigious firms who are readily available and eagerly willing to take on assignments on a project basis. Today, many of those lawyers are hired by ALSPs.

In a sense, labor 鈥� even highly seasoned and experienced counsel 鈥� can become more like a utility that鈥檚 flexibly deployed when and where it鈥檚 needed, but this too requires a mindset shift. This model largely runs contrary to the traditional law firm leverage model, and at the end of the day, a firm doesn鈥檛 make money strictly off its labor 鈥� it makes money off the matter.

Setting a new course, driven by technology

When we founded Flatiron Law Group, we felt the time was right to introduce the elements of this type of model to the legal market within a new firm. Our goal was to create a technology-leveraged firm that applied best practices to close deals more efficiently while maintaining quality. We mapped out a multipronged approach that included fixed fees or AFAs for most matters, a focus on cost control, agile deployment of labor, and a streamlined workflow process. Ultimately, our goal was to deliver high-quality work that exceeded client expectations.

Fixed fees would be integral in offering high-quality deal work with the predictable, value-based pricing that clients want. This introduces an elevated level of financial risk, not deal risk, for the firm, but managing deal work almost as a banker would, with deposits, progress payments, breakup fees and so on, makes the financial risks of AFAs manageable. It also means potential upside for the firm depending on how well each deal is managed.

Fixed fees would be integral in offering high-quality deal work with the predictable, value-based pricing that clients want.

We took a clean-sheet approach to reengineering and streamlining workflows. And because we knew technology would be key to enabling better data and decision-making in the deal flow, we took the step of building our own platform for extracting, processing, and delivering the reams of data needed to close a deal, as well as finding and pulling the right clauses when needed. For example, we recently closed a deal that involved more than 600 individual diligence requests. Doing that task manually would have required a lot of people going through a lot of boxes of materials multiple times. Instead, now we could enter a few search terms and answer requests in minutes instead of weeks.

Further, we鈥檝e now spun out our software, which we call 鈥淒eal Driver,鈥� into a separate company to complete its development as a commercial platform. Our vision is to eventually automate the entire M&A deal process from start to finish.

So far, we鈥檝e successfully completed more than 20 deals in the last four years at lower cost while providing the quality level that clients expect 鈥� and we have done it all while maintaining healthy profit margins. Also, our model is scalable and replicable for other practices. There鈥檚 no reason it couldn鈥檛 be applied to real estate, commercial lending, venture capital, project finance, and even litigation work.

While managing deals is professionally satisfying, at the end of the day, it鈥檚 about reinventing the law firm space. Disruptive innovation is possible with the right drive and commitment, and it can be a win-win for everyone: the firm, lawyers, and clients.

Real change only comes when it鈥檚 driven by the market 鈥� and today, the market is ready to move the industry in a direction that encourages greater use of AFAs for M&A as well as other legal work.

You can access the interactive Spring 2024 issue of the 成人VR视频 Institute鈥檚听.

成人VR视频鈥� newly published Regional Law Firm Brand Indexes 2022 (download below) shows how those law firms that were able to forge the components of strong client relationships 鈥� such as establishing high firm favorability and brand awareness in the minds of clients 鈥� saw the most growth in this year鈥檚 Indexes. The new Regional Indexes covers the legal markets in five separate countries or regions 鈥� the United States, the United Kingdom, Mainland Europe, Canada, and the Asia-Pacific region.

Each Index is based on data compiled in 2021 from 成人VR视频 Sharplegal study; and the sample of surveyed organizations is random across each individual country or region with all major industries and sections represented to consistently allow for reliable benchmarking.

The Indexes are not a reflection of technical competence alone, however; it is a reflection of which firms are upper-most in clients鈥� minds, to which firms clients are most attracted, and to which they are most likely to give their most important work. How the regional rankings in the Indexes change over time shows which firms are doing a better job of making and maintaining a meaningful relevant impression with clients through experience, relationship development, and alignment with clients鈥� goals and needs.

Overall, the data shows that clients in almost every country or region are planning to increase the level of their legal spend in 2022. Indeed, it appears that the lingering impact of the pandemic has kept organizations鈥� legal budgets robust and corporate law departments鈥� reliance on outside counsel at a high level. Add to this a booming M&A market in many areas around the world and it鈥檚 no surprise that those firms most quickly climbing up the Index are well-situated in clients鈥� minds for top-level M&A work.

From a brand perspective, a post-pandemic shift was clearly going on across all regions. Traditional law firm differentiators like historic reputations or relationships with individual lawyers gave way to other factors such as clients鈥� need to have fast, trustworthy advice from their external counsel. The rapid response aspect of legal work was increasingly important to clients, especially as in-house lawyer workloads continue to grow.

鈥淚n 2021, as businesses emerged from the crisis, legal service buying patterns focus on forward-facing factors like understanding the client鈥檚 business and knowledge of their sector,鈥� explains Elizabeth Duffy, Senior Director of Global Client Services at 成人VR视频. 鈥淎nd we still see clients prioritizing specialist expertise over historical relationships or reputation.鈥�

Indeed, standing out in today鈥檚 legal marketplace requires firms to hone an ever-evolving set of skills. What once was considered solid differentiators in recent years have turned into table stakes as clients continually push for higher standards in legal service delivery. Simply put, the bar continues to rise. For example, responsive law firms no longer stand out as unique, nor can they tout their responsiveness as anything beyond what is an expected norm. However, newer skills 鈥� like being proactive communicators 鈥� do still allow a firm and its key lawyers to stand out.

Similarly, the idea of understanding your client鈥檚 business is simply expected; and without it, client satisfaction can drop precipitously. However, delivering commercial-ready advice is one of the most effective ways outside law firms can still differentiate themselves and earn a larger share of clients鈥� legal spend.

As more client businesses try to put the harsh depths of the pandemic crisis behind them, legal demand is becoming more focused on these forward-facing factors, such as how well law firms understand their clients鈥� business and market sector. And as we continue to move through 2022 and beyond, we will increasingly see clients all around the world prioritize this kind of specialist expertise and reward those outside law firms that can provide it.

Download 成人VR视频鈥� Regional Law Firm Brand Indexes 2022 here: