When a firm wants to improve profitability, asking people to bill more hours can seem like a straightforward place to start. But how much does the firm earn from the work people already do?
For firms over $2 million in revenue, the 2026 Rosenberg Survey looks at 10 performance measures. For each measure, it identifies the top 25% of firms and calculates their average income per partner (IPP).
Average IPP was highest in the groups leading in revenue per partner, staff-to-partner ratio, revenue per person, and partner billing rate. The groups with the most partner billable hours, staff billable hours, and total partner work hours ranked seventh, eighth, and ninth in average IPP.
The comparison doesn’t establish that raising rates, adding staff, or increasing hours will produce higher income. It does suggest looking at staffing and pricing before assuming more hours are the answer.
Look at how much work depends on a partner
Firms with staff-to-partner ratios above 10 reported average IPP of $807,481. Those with ratios of 3–3.9 averaged $326,062.
The groups may also differ in size, service mix, and other characteristics, so adding staff won’t automatically produce higher partner income. To assess whether your firm could benefit from delegating more work, examine what reaches a partner’s desk.
Some tasks require a partner’s judgment. Partners may handle other tasks because staff haven’t been trained to do them, clients expect partner involvement, or nobody has reconsidered who should do the work.
Start with a few recent engagements. Who performed the work, and where did review delays occur? Which decisions required a partner? Which could a manager handle with additional training or the authority to make the decision?
Examine what you’re getting from staffing investments
Firms with staff-to-partner ratios above 10 also spent a larger share of net revenue on salaries and benefits: 51.1%, compared with 33.3% for firms with ratios of 3–3.9.
Spending a smaller share of revenue on staff doesn’t necessarily leave partners with more income. It may mean partners do more of the work themselves.
Before deciding whether staffing costs are too high, examine what that spending accomplishes. Are managers taking responsibility for supervising engagements? Can staff complete their assignments without repeatedly going back to a partner? Have new hires reduced the work partners handle themselves?
Those answers help you decide whether to hire, change how work is assigned and supervised, or do both.
Look beyond the stated billing rate
Firms in the top quarter for partner billing rates ranked fourth in the IPP comparison. For firms using hourly billing, it’s worth examining both the stated rates and the fees actually realized.
A higher rate may produce little benefit if the firm routinely discounts invoices. Even collecting the full amount billed may leave too little income if the rate is too low.
For fixed-fee engagements, compare the fee collected with the work performed and the time and costs involved. Are you regularly handling additional requests without adjusting the fee? Are you renewing unusually demanding engagements without adjusting the scope or fee?
If an engagement consistently requires more work than its fee covers, a higher billable-hours target won’t resolve the underlying pricing problem.
Choose one change to evaluate
The survey helps identify areas to examine, but your own engagement results should guide what you change.
Start with one recurring service that has been less profitable than expected. Review fees, staffing assignments, and partner involvement together. Then choose a specific adjustment, such as revising the scope at renewal or making an experienced manager responsible for a specific part of the review.
Agree on how and when you’ll assess the result. Depending on the change, you might track the fees collected, the partner hours required, or the time spent correcting work during the next engagement.
Before raising billable-hours targets, examine whether changes in pricing or work assignments could improve profitability.
