The paid attorney calendar is larger than the sold-hour pool, and earned fees arrive later than the work. This fictional Raleigh noncontingent practice includes its owner within two paid attorneys. Its January 2027–December 2029 forecast retains support and occupancy costs and shows losses despite growing fees.

THE IDEA TO KEEP

Test accepted matter scope against paid attorney time and collection evidence. Client advances and trust money are outside this forecast, and no extra owner capacity is added.

Whose hours can create the modeled fees?

Two attorneys, including the owner once, share the scheduled attorney calendar. The base sold utilization is 38%; April sold time totals 121.6. Business, litigation, estate, family and property work allocate that pool once.

Paralegal and administration coverage support delivery but add no separately billed attorney capacity here. The rate is an expected collectible hourly equivalent; the model does not apply another realization haircut. This is a business forecast, not a statement of professional or engagement rules.

Fictional April 2027; expected collectible hourly fees and attorney time.
Practice categorySold attorney hoursFee/hourEarned fee
Business law30.4$300.00$9,120.00
Civil litigation30.4$340.00$10,336.00
Estate planning24.32$270.00$6,566.40
Family matters24.32$290.00$7,052.80
Property advice12.16$300.00$3,648.00

What is outside the fee forecast?

Contingent fees, settlement proceeds, client court disbursements and trust advances are excluded from firm revenue. The case sells scoped hourly professional work rather than assuming an outcome-based receipt from every matter.

Complexity, information delays and deadline collisions consume the same attorney calendar. A monthly pool does not prove hearing or filing schedules are feasible. The actual professional eligibility, supervision and matter terms remain to be established before real work.

Fee earnings and cash receipts differ: 2027 earned fees $403,955.20; 2027 collections $372,128.43; Receivables $31,826.77; Operating cash flow -$148,842.43
Checked scenario explanation; the text and table provide the same values and limits.

Does the sold workload cover the paid practice?

April revenue is $36,723.20; EBITDA is -$6,813.45. Both attorneys are compensated through the same payroll row, at $11,458.33 each before employer allowances. The owner is not a free third attorney or an extra salary added later.

Operating-year 2027 EBITDA is -$117,015.66, and net income is -$124,574.00. EBITDA excludes depreciation, interest and tax. Paid support, research tools, cover and office costs remain inside operating expenses while sold utilization is weak.

How do collections deepen the opening cash drain?

The blended collection assumption is 26 days. Earned 2027 fees exceed collections by $31,826.77, while operating cash flow is -$148,842.43. A receivable is not current cash for payroll.

Proposed owner equity is $300,000.00. Minimum forecast cash is $19,764.91, and initial investment remains unrecovered. Equity is uncommitted and the refundable lease deposit is excluded. Client advance/trust balances are not used to improve the company reserve in this case.

Which records should support the planning decision?

Follow an accepted paid matter from intake and authorized records through attorney/support time, review, invoicing and payment. Compare expected collectible rates with actual fee realization and collection dates before changing the sold-hour assumption.

Inspect the practical deadline calendar and support workload. Obtain scoped office, software and coverage quotes, and retain the owner’s compensation when testing slower collections. No actual client roster, achieved fee history or professional approval is supplied by the fictional case.

Make the next decision with your own evidence

Use accepted matter time and collection records to test sold attorney utilization before relying on the proposed owner reserve.

Explore published business plan examples ↗

Create my own business plan ↗

About the worked case

Elmbridge Counsel is a fictional prelaunch scenario prepared with AI assistance. Inputs are illustrative; forecast results come from the matching saved financial model. Funding is proposed. The diagrams explain the case and do not depict actual premises, established demand or promised earnings. Replace the assumptions with evidence before committing.

Read our methodology
Continue exploringBack to the journal ↗