This topic has been on my mind since the time I first decided to open my own law practice, which by my calculation was roughly 10 months ago. I eventually decided to share office space with another solo attorney and that has turned out to be a great decision. Even with that being said, I have hummed and hawed as to whether I could make the leap from the traditional law firm or Second Wave approach to the home office lawyer or Third Wave approach to running a law practice. To date I have not manifested the fortitude required to fight the internal and perceived resistance to the "radical" home office concept. I put radical in quotes to emphasis my lingering surprise that such a feasible business strategy can be met with such resistance. But I must digress or this post will spiral into another self-motivating and self-deprecating rant on why I should move the office home and why I still cannot make the leap.
For those of us still moving along the evolutionary path we may find ourselves in brick and mortar office complexes surrounded by all of the things that the partners in the firm we left "had" to have to fully equip a law office. While I will not go so far as to say that an actual office location is a bad business decision, because quite honestly it makes a lot of sense for many attorney, but I will say rubbish to the idea and strategy that all law firms need the same sorts of things. As I have mentioned on a couple of occasions before a law school graduate needs only a handful of things to start and build a law practice. That list includes a law license in the proper jurisdiction, a computer, a printer, a phone number, an internet connection, and a clue. Why then does our profession insist on spending money on things that do not have a positive return on investment from an economic perspective? [(Author's note: I was going to include the following two sentences here, but I am not sure it is applicable and since I am not an economist I thought you could all see if my logic and analysis makes sense) For some reason the laws of diminishing returns is bouncing around my head. The truth is that it is a stretch for me to pretend to be an economist so let me know if I am way off base, but I see value in making the comparison regardless of the economic principle that the scenario best characterizes. The basic premise to the law of diminishing returns is that as level of input (expenses) increases the level of output (revenue) increases in lesser and lesser amounts.]
Let's compare my bare bones law firm start-up and the traditional law firm to test this theory. The bare bones law firm has extremely low fixed and variable expenses. In fact, many of the items listed can be used in the business free of cost if the attorney already has a working computer and printer. The law license will cost money each year, as will the internet connection and a phone number. However, if the firm is based out of the attorney's home, then those will not be costs outside the personal budget. The clue component is as variable as they come. Some attorneys understand the business and substantive side of the practice of law, while other attorneys need to work on either or both sides.
For this example I am going to assume our attorney is a recent graduate with a sound business mind and a sponge-like aptitude for learning but he or she is admittedly green from a practical perspective. All told let's say our new law firm has less than $1,000 dollars in start-up costs and less than $250 a month in overhead. Our friend downtown has decided to follow the path of our forefathers by setting up a modest brick and mortar law office. He
leased space, purchased a new computer, internet legal research subscriptions, yellow pages advertisements, office equipment, a stand alone printer, fax machine and stationary. His total start-up costs are roughly $10,000 and his overhead is $1,750. From day one traditional attorney must generate a lot more business than our home office lawyer. I threw together the chart below to illustrate some of the things I am talking about in this comparison. For purposes of the chart below I assumed the expenses as stated above and I inputed revenue as follows: For Bare Bones I started with $1,000 in revenue set to increase by 10% each month. For Traditional I started with $2,000 in revenue set to increase by 10% each month. At the end of the year Bare Bones had a cumulative profit of roughly $17,400 and Traditional had a cumulative profit of roughly $11,300. This simple analysis does not take into account the opportunity cost of using funds to start the business instead of investing elsewhere or interest expense associated with borrowing the start-up funds. Traditional did not generate a cumulative profit until August (the 8th month), while Bare Bones generated a cumulative profit in the February (the 2nd month).

Just for fun I ran the projections out another 6 months and I noticed that Traditional's cumulative profit finally surpassed Bare Bones in March of the second year or the 15th month of operation. This analysis is not to be confused with full-fledged market or economic studies. I put it together at various points throughout the day.
I have to admit that I am amazed at what the statistics show at the end of the day. I built the model with very conservative revenue estimates for the Bare Bones law firm relative to the Traditional law firm model and still it took 15 months for Traditional to catch up. It is proof enough to me that the size of the hole you dig when starting your firm and the decorations your put around it make all the difference in the world when it comes to your firm's short, mid and long term financial health. Let me know what you think. Good, bad and ugly. Either way it should help get the ball rolling on the topic of Home Office Space.
Recent Comments