Client Profitability Rollup

When a managing partner or relationship partner asks "is this client actually profitable?" the answer usually requires reading the client across every matter — open and closed — at once. This skill produces that single-relationship view: total revenue and margin, client-level realization, matter-type mix, fee-structure mix, leverage mix, DSO and aging, and trend over time. It also calls out which patterns are client-driven versus matter-driven, which is the difference between "this client is the problem" and "this matter type is the problem." Three input modes are supported. Mode 1: a clean billing export (CSV with matter-level revenue, hours, costs, write-downs, write-offs, AR aging). Mode 2: messy or partial data — whatever your billing system gave you, even if columns are unlabeled or matters are split across spreadsheets. Mode 3: verbal facts only, when you're working from memory or a partner's narrative description. The skill works in all three modes; PRECISION AND DEPTH OF INSIGHTS DEPEND ON DATA COMPLETENESS AND CLEANLINESS. Ideal data attributes (per matter — the more of these you can supply, the more granular the analysis): — Matter identifiers: client ID/name, matter ID/name, matter type or practice area, matter open date, matter close date (if closed), originating partner, billing/responsible partner. — Revenue and billing: standard value (hours × standard rates), billed value (after pre-bill adjustments), collected value (cash received), write-down amount and reason, write-off amount, fee structure (hourly / fixed / capped / contingency / hybrid), period covered. — Effort and cost: hours by timekeeper level (partner / senior associate / junior associate / paralegal), cost rate per timekeeper or a firm blended cost ratio, disbursements and reimbursable costs, non-billable hours. — AR and aging: current AR balance per matter, age buckets (0–30, 31–60, 61–90, over 90 days), DSO, any matters under collection action. — Optional but valuable: origination credit split, discount or rate concession applied, trust account balance, invoice-level detail, cross-sell history with the same client. If your billing system can export some but not all of these, supply what you have — the skill flags assumptions it had to make and which conclusions are sensitive to them. The default deliverable is a structured Excel workbook with a Glossary sheet, formula transparency on every figure, and a per-matter detail tab. On Claude Code (with the bundled xlsx skill) the workbook ships as a real .xlsx file; on other runtimes (Claude.com chat, ChatGPT, Gemini, Cursor, Windsurf, Ollama, LM Studio) the skill produces a complete markdown readout of the workbook structure that you assemble into Excel yourself. An optional Word memo follows the same pattern: a real .docx file on Claude Code, Word-ready markdown prose elsewhere — either way a 3–4 page executive summary for a partner pitch or comp-committee discussion. The skill states up front which path it took. Use cases: deciding whether to renegotiate a client's outside counsel guidelines, deciding whether to keep a relationship at all, building the materials for a pitch to expand the relationship, scoping write-down patterns before a year-end review, or framing a difficult conversation with a billing partner about a client that looks busy but isn't actually profitable. What this skill does not do: predict future profitability under hypothetical changes (use Legal InnovAI's Matter Pricing Memo skill for that), rank multiple clients against each other (use Legal InnovAIs Matter Portfolio Ranker skill), or analyze a single matter in depth (use Legal InnovAI's Matter Profitability Deep Dive skill). This Client Profitability Rollup skill is the relationship-level view. Outputs require professional review. Profitability figures depend on cost-rate assumptions, overhead allocation methodology, and how your firm treats indirect costs — those choices are yours, and the skill assumes the figures you provide are correct. Use the output to inform partner-level decisions, not to replace them.

We'll use the Mode C input quality (verbal input) to demonstrate the results from a rudimentary input of unstructured, approximate data. With more complete and structured data, the output becomes increasingly more meaningful and actionable:

"Smith & Lee LLP has represented Acme Manufacturing for six years across 23 matters (8 currently open, 15 closed). Last fiscal year, we billed Acme approximately $2.4M across the relationship — roughly 62% from hourly engagements, 25% from capped AFAs on three M&A transactions, 13% from a partial-contingency arrangement on environmental litigation. Realization on hourly work was 87% (typical write-downs around 13%). AFA realization ranged 78%–105% depending on scope creep; weighted average 91%. Leverage profile differs sharply by matter type — litigation: 45% partner / 35% senior associate / 20% junior; transactional: 25% partner / 60% senior associate / 15% junior. DSO across the relationship is 67 days vs. firm average of 52; two matters are at >90 days outstanding for $180K combined. Origination credit is 60% to Cynthia Chen (relationship partner). YoY: gross billings +8%, but margin per matter declined approximately 3 points because of one heavy contingent matter that consumed hours without commensurate billing. The relationship partner is weighing whether to renegotiate the master OCG before next year. We have no per-timekeeper cost rates handy; please use a 50% blended cost ratio for an initial pass and flag where that assumption changes the conclusions."

Acme Manufacturing — Relationship Profitability Rollup
Mode C — verbal-facts mode (no per-timekeeper cost rates supplied)

GIGO disclaimer. This rollup uses verbal facts and a 50% blended cost-rate assumption per the user's request. Cost-rate accuracy is the largest source of error in any margin analysis; the relationship partner should re-run with actual per-timekeeper cost rates before any renegotiation conversation.

Input inventory (abbreviated). Matter count: 23 (8 open, 15 closed). Period covered: FY 2025–26. Total billed: ~$2.4M. Hourly / AFA / contingent split: 62% / 25% / 13%. Per-timekeeper cost rates: not supplied — 50% blended assumption applied. (Full inventory table in the deliverable.)

Gap register (abbreviated). Per-matter cost detail unavailable. Per-month bill cadence unavailable. Specific OCG terms unspecified. (Full gap register in the deliverable.)

Headline. $2.4M gross billings, ~$1.05M margin (44%) at 50% blended cost. Healthy on transactional, break-even on the contingent matter, hourly litigation in between.

Realization. Weighted 89% — slightly below the firm-typical 92% benchmark. Drag concentrates on hourly litigation (13% write-downs, mostly partner time) and one AFA that ran 22% over scope.

Leverage. Litigation is partner-heavy (45% partner) vs. ~30% target — a likely write-down driver. Transactional leverage is well-distributed.

DSO. 67 days vs. firm-average 52 — a 15-day gap. Two >90-day matters represent $180K and concentrate AR risk.

Patterns: client-driven vs. matter-driven. Realization gap is matter-driven (litigation write-downs, one AFA scope creep). Leverage gap is matter-type. DSO gap is client-driven — Acme's payables team is slower than firm average. That's the renegotiation lever.

Recommendations (abbreviated). 1) Renegotiate AR terms in next OCG (Net 45 → Net 30, 1% fast-pay). 2) Adjust litigation leverage toward 30% partner / 45% senior / 25% junior — would have added ~$140K. 3) Reprice contingent at renewal — consider hybrid contingent + minimum-monthly-fee floor. 4) Continue transactional AFA mix. (Full recommendations with dollar magnitudes in deliverable.)

Sensitivities. At 45% blended cost, margin rises to $1.20M (50%); at 55%, falls to $890K (37%). Conclusions hold across the band.

Outputs require professional review. Cost figures use the placeholder 50% blended ratio; relationship partner re-runs with actual rates before any renegotiation. Origination-credit and partner-level points are framing, not decisions — those belong to the comp committee. (Glossary appended in the full deliverable.)

Sanitized example, not professional advice. All sales final — use the preview to confirm fit before purchase.

The author has tested this skill on the providers below. The specific model list updates automatically as providers ship new models or retire old ones. Compatibility with providers not listed below is not guaranteed — the skill may not produce equivalent results outside the tested set.

• v1.0.0Current2026-05-07

Existing buyers receive new versions free of charge. Pin to a specific version from your library if your workflow needs the exact bundle behavior of an earlier release.

No reviews yet — be the first after you buy.

Concerned about accuracy, fabricated metrics, or skills that don't do what they say they do? A formal in-app report flow is coming soon. In the meantime, raise concerns through the buyer feedback channel in your Library after purchase, or contact the seller of record above.