Backed by Y CombinatorThree documents and four sheets that compute realization by matter and fee earner, then check it against which client the revenue actually comes from.
Free download · No account needed
What you get
Pack of 7 files: 3 documents, 4 spreadsheets
Practice ViewQ2 2026, reviewed 30 June 2026. Four numbers, each one a specific cell on a sheet behind it.
| Metric | Value | Benchmark |
|---|---|---|
| Firm-wide realization | 80.65% | 88% national avg, Clio 2025 |
| Excluding the Brackenridge retainer | 92.02% | — |
| Combined WIP + AR lockup | 56.8 days | ~93 days national avg, Clio 2025 |
| Top-3 client revenue share | 73.26% | — |
A healthy lockup number and a weak realization number measure two different failures, and both are true on this firm at once.
By Fee Earner720 hours, four fee earners, rolled up from six matters.
| Fee earner | Role | Hours | Realization | Effective rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reyes | Associate | 250 | 62.86% | $210.58/hr |
| Okafor | Associate | 230 | 90.43% | $266.78/hr |
| Halsted | Partner | 120 | 85.10% | $404.23/hr |
| Voss | Partner | 120 | 91.25% | $410.63/hr |
Reyes ranks first by hours and last by realization. Eighty-four percent of those hours sit on one flat-fee retainer.
Client ConcentrationRanked by share of billed revenue, checked against each client's own matter realization.
| Client | Revenue share | Realization | Flag |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kestrel Analytics | 29.67% | 92.00% | |
| Brackenridge Foods | 22.66% | 56.74% | Top-3 client, worst matter |
| Marrow & Finch | 20.93% | 95.00% | |
| Delacombe Partners | 11.03% | 88.00% | |
| Thornbury Estates | 9.56% | 90.00% | |
| Pellingham Trust | 6.15% | 93.00% |
The second-largest client by revenue is also the worst-performing matter on the book, invisible because the invoice is the same size every month.
Search for a law firm practice management template and the results are Excel workbooks and legal-blog guides. Each one builds realization and work in progress as two separate spreadsheets: billed hours against worked hours in one tab, unbilled time sorted into aging buckets in another. LeanLaw's own templates recommend targeting 85 to 95 percent realization. None of the well-ranked pages check whether the fee earner with the most hours is also the one running the worst realization, or whether that gap sits on a top-three client by revenue.
Halsted Voss LLP, a four-person invented firm, logged 720 hours across six matters in one quarter. Firm-wide realization came in at 80.65 percent, eight points under the 88 percent national average in Clio's 2025 Legal Trends Report. Rolling the same hours up by fee earner shows why. Reyes, the associate with the most hours in the firm at 250, also has the lowest realization at 62.86 percent, because 84 percent of those hours sit on a flat retainer that pays $16,000 a month regardless of hours worked.
That retainer, Brackenridge Foods, is also the firm's second-largest account by revenue at 22.66 percent, between two clients billed at 92 and 95 percent realization. The gap is invisible because the invoice never changes size. Unbilled time and open receivables add up to 56.8 days of billed revenue, under Clio's roughly 93-day national average: a healthy lockup number and a weak realization number, on the same firm, at once. The agency retainer reconciliation runs the same discipline for marketing retainers, and the scheduling pack tracks the same over-committed problem for field crews.
Where the realization gap comes from, which client it sits on, and what it costs in days.
Who has room for new work, who is over-committed, and what a new prospect would do to their book.
Realization, lockup days and client concentration on one page, each number a specific cell on the sheets behind it.
Every matter's standard and billed value, rolled up by fee earner and ranked by hours logged and by realization rate.
Unbilled hours by matter as of the reporting date, valued at standard rates and at each matter's own realization rate.
Every client's share of billed revenue, checked against their own matter's realization rate rather than the size of the invoice.
Prospective matters with a likely fee earner, flagged against that person's current hours and realization before staffing.
Take the blank Word and CSV files with no account, or install the pack in River and hand it a quarter of time entries and invoices.
Hours by matter and fee earner, what was actually billed, and which matters run hourly versus flat fee or retainer, so standard and billed value can both be computed.
By fee earner and by client, never averaged only at the firm level, since a blended number is exactly what one underperforming matter hides inside.
Any new prospect against that fee earner's current hours and realization, so growth does not land on the person already most over-committed.
Yes. Three documents and four sheets download as Word and CSV files with no signup and no credit card. Edit with AI is the optional path where the agent builds the realization sheet from your own time entries and invoices. The rest of the library is at the template index.
Word documents (.docx) for the Operating Review, Capacity Note and Practice View, and CSV (.csv) for the four sheets: Realization by Matter and Fee Earner, Work in Progress, Client Concentration and Pipeline. They open natively in Word, Google Docs, Excel and Sheets.
No. Time entry, invoicing and trust accounting stay in whatever system you already run. This pack takes the export from that system, a quarter of time entries and invoices, and runs the matter-level and client-level cross-check those systems usually report separately rather than joined.
Most realization trackers stop at a single firm-wide rate or a per-matter list. This one rolls the same figures up by fee earner and separately checks every top-three client by revenue against their own matter's realization rate, which is where a flat-fee or retainer matter running under water actually hides.
Yes, and the worked example is built around exactly that mix. A flat-fee or retainer matter's realization rate is the billed amount divided by the combined standard value of everyone who logged time on it. Apply that rate to each person's own share, so a fixed fee never reads as a write-down nobody actually decided on.
From your own numbers. Send a period's time entries by matter and fee earner, the invoices actually raised, and your client list. The agent computes standard value, billed value and realization at the matter level first, then rolls those figures up rather than averaging a firm-wide rate.
Written by
Co-founder & CEO, River
Chandler has spent the last six years working in AI, building tools for millions of users and Fortune 100 companies. In 2025, he co-founded River to build a new kind of operating system for AI agents.
Download the blank pack as Word and CSV files, or open it in River, send a quarter of time entries and invoices, and get the matter-level and client-level breakdown back.
Edit with AI