February 2018

Legal Firm SurveyStructured for profit

Contents

2016/17 $19.4bREVENUE

1.9%ANNUAL GROWTH 12-17

$5.9bWAGES

20,722BUSINESSES

2017/18 $19.7bREVENUE

1.1%ANNUAL GROWTH 13-18

$6.1bWAGES

21,247BUSINESSES

Legal profession at a glance

Source: IBISWorld September 2017

Executive summary 1

Challenges 2

Legal survey 2017 highlights 3

Structure, governance, decision making 4

Growth, revenue, profit 6

Succession 7

Technology 8

Cybersecurity 9

Attracting and retaining staff 10

Our outlook for the future 11

About Pitcher Partners 12

Executive summary

The major themes emerging from our survey include:

• Profitability appears to be linked to the legal and decision-making structures of firms

• Size of firm, based on the number of equity partners, has impact on profitability in the current market environment

• Revenue increases are not consistently translating into bottom line profit growth

• Regular reporting and WIP reviews appear related to firms with higher profitability

• Documented succession plans are increasing but most law firms are still without one

• New developments in technology are being used to improve the client experience

• The vast majority of law firms’ and their clients’ information appear unprotected against cyber-attack

We trust our report offers valuable insight for firms and others in the industry and look forward to discussing it with you.

Pitcher Partners recently conducted our fourth annual Legal Firm Survey. The survey was designed to gain further industry insight and to help firms make informed decisions during times of rapid change. Having received our greatest ever response, we are delighted to share our 2017 Legal Firm Survey Report with you.

Major themes evident in responses from our participants and addressed in the broader Australian legal press during 2017

GOVERNANCE AND STRATEGIC DECISION MAKING

TECHNOLOGY AND THE CLIENT EXPERIENCE

MANAGING GROWTH

FINDING AND KEEPING THE RIGHT STAFF AT ALL LEVELS

1

The top five challenges faced by respondents come as no surprise

1. ATTRACTING NEW CLIENTS

2. ATTRACTING AND RETAINING STAFF

3. CLIENTS SEEKING MORE

COMPETITIVE PRICES4. MARKET/ECONOMIC

CONDITIONS5. SUCCESSION

ChallengesAttracting new clients remains the number one concern in a highly challenging legal market. However, it was pleasing that 73% of respondents grew fee revenue in 2017.Survey respondents said the predominant source of new work came from existing client/contact referrals, followed closely by partner business development.

Firms should consider online advertising channels as these remain a largely untapped marketing channel among commercial practices. In comparison to traditional marketing channels, online advertising is relatively low cost and allows small to medium firms to engage directly with an audience and potentially source new work. However, the most effective business development activities for professional services remain personal, namely referral relationships and networking.

Attracting and retaining staff continue to be among the top challenges among survey respondents. Competition for attracting and retaining high calibre staff intensifies as firms continue to lose staff to in-house legal teams, existing competitors and new market entrants. Staff retention policies need to be in place as high staff turnover rates will ultimately, and directly, affect a firm’s bottom line.

Clients are seeking more value and in response, law firms are adopting innovative billing alternatives. Despite the steady increase in alternative fee arrangements, traditional hourly rate billings still dominate how firms bill their clients. Firms should adapt to client expectations about how they want to be billed and consider offering contemporary and innovative fee arrangements such as fixed, success based, value based, subscription based, capped and staged/milestone billing options.

Firms appear to be aware of the challenges they face but unsure how to respond to those challenges. Firms need to ensure they are open and willing to accept change and get comfortable being uncomfortable.

Things to consider

What is your firm doing to adapt and change in a challenging legal market?How are you pricing your work?

BILLING METHODS

33%FIXED PRICE

10%VALUE BASED

4%OTHER

53%TIME BASED

2

AVERAGE PROFESSIONAL FEES PER EQUITY PARTICIPANT

AVERAGE NET PROFIT PER EQUITY PARTICIPANT

NET PROFIT AS A % OF PROFESSIONAL FEES

Legal survey 2017 Highlights

THE TOP LINE: REVENUE & OUTLOOK

FINANCIALS FIRM FINANCE

77%OF FIRMS COMPLETED

AN ANNUAL BUDGET

90%PARTNEREQUITY

69%OVERDRAFT

55%LONG TERM

DEBT

53%OF FIRMS USE TECHNOLOGY TO

IMPROVE CLIENT EXPERIENCE

TOP 3 WIP WRITE OFF REASONS

71%OF FIRMS

ACTIVELY REVIEW WIP WRITE OFF

12%IS THE AVERAGE WRITE OFF FOR THOSE FIRMSTIME OVERRUN

(E.G. UNNECESSARY REWORK)FIXED PRICE OVERRUN

(E.G. INADEQUATE QUOTE)SCOPE CREEP

ARE YOU A GOODWILL PRACTICE?

46%YES54%

NO

2017 FY

2018 FY PROJECTION

28% 26% 31%$1.9M$1.5M

2016

2017

$498K$416K

2016 2017

20162017

2018PROJECTION

NONE 1-5 5+

GRADUATE INTAKE

37%40%

2017 2018PROJECTION

45%45%

2017 2018PROJECTION

18%15%2017 2018

PROJECTION

35% OF FIRMS USE CONTRACT LEGAL STAFF

GROWTH IN FEES73%OF FIRMS EXPERIENCE GROWTH

76%OF FIRMS ARE EXPECTED TO

GROW

35%YES

65%NO

DO YOU HAVE A

DOCUMENTED SUCCESSION

PLAN?

2016: 77%

2016: 66%

2016: 73%

2016: 25%

2016: 33%

2016: 71% 2016: 11%

3

Structure, governance, decision makingIn this highly competitive environment, legal firms are continually seeking a competitive advantage. It is often thought that smaller boutique firms are more agile and better placed to implement change at the pace necessary to stay ahead of the pack.

In determining which legal structure, governance and decision models are right for your firm, owners should at least consider the following:

Legal structure

• How to protect assets and income,

• Ease of admission and exit of partners (including CGT on introduction or sale of interests),

• Flexibility of distributions and remuneration,

• Impact on complexity of administration and taxation compliance, and

• The impact of goodwill.

Governance model

• The desired firm culture and behaviours,

• The level of transparency of decision making,

• Ensuring accountability for decision making, and

• Level of direct engagement of partners and senior team leaders.

From our experience, whilst each firm will have reason for the legal structure adopted, we believe the optimal structure choices (in order of preference) are:

1. A partnership of discretionary trusts

2. Discretionary trust with a corporate trustee

3. Unit trust

4. Hybrid trust

5. A partnership of individuals

6. Incorporation

Irrespective of the firm’s legal structure adopted, structure will influence but should not determine the governance model you choose.

Once a legal structure has been chosen for your firm, choosing and implementing a good governance model will play an integral role in a well-run firm.

43%OF RESPONDENTS SUGGESTED THEY WOULD CONSIDER RESTRUCTURING THEIR FIRM

46%OF RESPONDENTS CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN A GOODWILL PRACTICE

Almost half the 2017 respondents (43%) suggested they would consider restructuring their firm. In any restructure, the historic partnership model, related governance and decision making processes and the distinction between equity, non-equity partners and other professional staff roles within a firm are all issues to be reviewed.

Often the legal structure of a firm determines the decision making and governance structures adopted. We believe this does not need to be the case. Decisions about legal structure should be distinct from decision making, sharing of profits and ultimately your firm’s culture, values and behaviours.

Our 2017 survey saw a mix of legal structures adopted by respondents, with the majority of firms being either corporate entities (42%) or partnerships of individuals (21%). 46% of respondents continue to maintain a goodwill practice. Interestingly this percentage is well below our accountants’ survey where 63% of respondents maintain a goodwill practice. With the recurring nature of income tax and accounting work it comes as no surprise that more practitioners expect goodwill based on the recurring nature of revenue.

4

Things to consider

What is driving decision making within your firm?Have you considered the various structures and options available?

Impact of structure

It was interesting to compare the impact legal structure, number of equity partners and the decision-making models adopted have on the financial performance of respondent firms. In general terms, the results of our survey showed that:

• Firms with fewer than 5 equity partners were more profitable as a percentage of revenue (32%) followed by firms with greater than 10 equity partners (27%) and then firms with between 5-10 equity partners (21%)

• Firms with 5-10 equity partners were more profitable per equity partner (over $711k) followed by firms with >10 equity partners (over $637k) and firms with <5 equity partners (over $511K)

• Firms where decisions were made more collaboratively (all partners, board or committee of partners) were more profitable than those where decisions were made by the managing partner.

There are a number of factors that could be driving these results, many of which our survey did not cover in detail. For example:

• Smaller firms appear to benefit from the ability to carry lower overheads, however an assumed lack of leverage and the assumption that partners also spend more time undertaking administrative tasks, result in a lower profit per partner in dollars.

• Large firms have the ability to engage senior executives to administer the firm whilst consciously managing leverage and multiples, however the nature of a large practice lends itself to carrying greater overhead and cost leakage. Therefore a reduction in profit per partner in dollars.

• 5-10 partner firms, whilst of a size able to implement effective leveraging, also permit the partners to take on significant support in practice administration therefore allowing greater revenue contribution in the way of partner billable hours. In percentage terms, the overheads suggest a lower profit return which is misleading given the leverage benefits outweigh the costs.

This however, should not discount the importance of governance and decision making. Managing and leading a firm is far more complex and presents more difficult challenges today than in the past. A firm’s governance structure needs to support managing, leading and competing strategically and effectively. Good governance should result in all partners sharing their views while allowing for growth and adoption of change.

DECISION MAKING

28%ALL PARTNERS

22%EQUITY PARTNERS ONLY7%

COMMITTEE OF PARTNERS

21%OTHER

10%MANAGING PARTNER ONLY

12%BOARD (OTHER THAN JUST PARTNERS)

ALL PARTNERS 27%EQUITY PARTNERS ONLY 27%COMMITTEE OF PARTNERS 35%BOARD (OTHER THAN JUST PARTNERS) 26%MANAGING PARTNER ONLY 16%OTHER 27%

BY DECISION MAKING

PROFITABILITY BY STRUCTURE

CORPORATE 22%PARTNERSHIP OF ENTITIES 31%PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS 32%SOLE TRADER

OTHER 17%18%

5

Our survey response trends indicate there are factors which characterised more profitable firms in 2017:

Firms structured as partnerships of individuals or trusts

Decision making, and operations governed by a Board or Committee of Partners

Less than 5 equity partnersMore than 20 equity partners

Firms that have adapted outsourcing

Active management and review of work in progress

Growth, revenue, profitAs media commentary continued to question the future of the legal industry during 2017, we waited with keen interest the results of our 2017 survey.

73% of respondents to our 2016 survey indicated an expectation of fee growth in the 2017 financial year. Interestingly, 73% reported a revenue increase in 2017. 76% are expecting revenue increases again in 2018 and on average, forecast revenue growth of 7%.

However, whilst 2017 respondents reported growth in fees, and also higher fees per equity partner ($1.915m in 2017 up from $1.51m in 2016), unfortunately an increase in revenue did not correlate to bottom line performance improvement. Reported average net profit per equity partner was $498k, or 26%, a decrease from 28% reported in 2016. In comparison, average net profit per equity partner for our accounting survey respondents was $233,968 or 40%.

This decline is consistent with sentiment that the traditional legal model is being squeezed. As finding and retaining good staff proves more and more difficult, we are noticing lower partner to lawyer leverage ratios are becoming more common. As leverage has historically been a major driver of profitability, strategic management of leverage will be an essential area of focus if profitability is to improve in the short term.

If leverage ratios continue to shift, it is important for firms to clearly understand which clients provide the highest profit by ensuring the firm’s financial information provides an accurate understanding of profitability per client. This also underlines the importance of understanding, development, implementation and monitoring of client acceptance and continuance policies.

Close management of “scope creep” and ongoing cost reduction strategies also remain essential for firms looking to manage the bottom line. Firms should ensure that planned and budgeted expenditure on growth initiatives, such as adoption of new technology, are not limited by taking a short-term cost reduction over long term opportunity and growth prospects.

Things to consider

Are you actively managing staff leverage ratios and contribution multiples?Does your firm have processes and procedures to ensure revenue growth translates into improved bottom line profitability?

MORE PROFITABLE

Corporatised entities or sole traders

Managing partner or only equity Partners are decision makers

Between 5 and 10 equity partners

No outsourcing adapted

No regular review of work in progress

LESS PROFITABLE

6

Things to consider

Run a test case – what would happen to your firm if there was a sudden

departure of a key leader?

SuccessionSuccession planning is a key challenge for all business. Lawyers are often involved in the process of succession with their own clients, yet incredibly still only 35% of firms who completed our 2017 survey have a documented succession plan. Succession planning could be defined essentially as identifying and developing new leaders to replace leaders when they leave, retire or die. However in the context of legal firms it may also mean anything from sale of a sole practitioner practice to a merger of international legal firms.

According to our survey respondents, the biggest challenges in succession planning are partners not wanting to hand over or partner candidates/younger professionals not wanting to step up. Not a great combination of hurdles!

Firms often know they should have a succession plan in place, but may not know where to start. To avoid a haphazard approach to succession planning, firms should consider the following:

1. Make succession planning an integral business process by linking it to the firms’ overall business strategy. This will allow succession planning to affect the firm’s overall long term objectives and vision.

2. Legal firms are complex and keeping them running and growing takes a unique set of technical, professional, client and leadership skills. It is easy for experienced practitioners to take these skills for granted and overlook the serious challenge they present to junior staff, especially in smaller firms. Therefore, if your succession plan involves progression of existing staff to leadership, you need procedures in place to identify and engage Junior Associates with potential. Firms that have specific, individual development plans for their staff will attract and retain the right people to take over the firm.

3. If it is unlikely succession will come from within, firms should consider the factors which make them attractive to potential mergers or sale. These can include:

• Low staff turnover• Long term client base as attached to the business as

opposed to an individual partner• High gross profit margins• The impact of “goodwill”• Ability to complement other law firms’ services

4. Planning for life after partnership and making it part of the business strategy may assist when partners do not want to hand over. Firms may have a clearly defined role to refer to or an agreed consultancy role for retiring partners.

5. An often overlooked area of succession planning is the legal structure. Firm structures should allow for ease of admission and exit of partners. It can often be difficult to change the structure of a firm and the consequences of a bad structure can be costly. The small business restructure rollover, introduced 1 July 2016 may allow small businesses to transfer active assets from one entity to one or more other entities without incurring an income tax liability.

With many equity partners now fast approaching retirement age, it is essential firms have a succession plan in place to prepare the next generation of management. Firms who do not have a documented succession plan should at least begin talking about succession planning and the future, either among themselves or with their junior associates. Leadership succession isn’t a matter of if, but when and while we can’t predict the future, documenting a succession plan can provide firms with a level of protection.

39%PARTNERS NOT WANTING TO HAND OVER

4%CULTURE OF THE FIRM (SILOS ETC)

33%PARTNER CANDIDATES/YOUNGER PROFESSIONALS NOT WANTING TO STEP UP

2%LACK OF RECURRENT

WIP/ONGOING FEES

2%MANAGEMENT NOT STRONG ENOUGH

6%LACK OF BD/MARKETING TO BUILD THE FIRM PROFILE

2%GOODWILL CHALLENGES

12%OTHER

SUCCESSION PLANNING

7

Management systems

43%DO NOT HAVE THE SYSTEMS THEY NEED FOR CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT

36%DO NOT HAVE THE SYSTEMS THEY NEED FOR PEOPLE MANAGEMENT

TechnologyTechnology continues to change and the growing suite of products available to firms will radically transform how the legal profession is structured and operates.

Things to consider

Has your firm developed a strategy for adoption and implementation of technology to future proof your firm?Has your firm evaluated whether it is feasible to continue to deliver legal services the way you have done for years?

Firms should look to maximise returns on IT investment by identifying areas where efficiencies can be gained using technology. However, firms should understand the inefficiencies or problems they are trying to solve and not imagine new technology will automatically solve them.

It is often discussed that Artificial Intelligence (‘AI’) will disrupt, if not revolutionise the legal industry. AI technology has the potential to free up lawyers to spend more time on analysis and problem-solving. Firms that incorporate developing technologies such as AI into their service offerings will have a key point of difference over competitors. However the general uptake and impact of AI has thus far been minimal with only 11% of our survey respondents using AI technology in their legal firm.

Only 57% of firms surveyed use technology to improve the client experience, compared to 65% of respondents to our accounting firm survey. Client facing technology is about far

more than static websites and email bulletins, firms should ensure they understand both current technology trends and their clients’ expectations. For 67% of the legal firms using client facing technology, a client portal was the technology implemented. Portals provide clients with convenient access to information, files, and other resources they provide. Client portals raise the bar for a competitor firm that wants to try to take away business.

Firms need to decide how to embrace new technology or risk becoming outdated and left behind as clients vote with their feet. We expect firms to invest heavily in the coming years in solutions such as digital document executions, client portals, cloud technology and new internal practice management and CRM systems. Technology is key in reinventing and delivering a client focused business model but is no substitute for direct and personal contact.

Firm use of technology

11% AI

71% DOCUMENT AUTOMATION

20% VERIFICATION TECHNOLOGY

20% DOCUMENT READING TECHNOLOGY

8

Privacy Act cybersecurity breaches

$340KIN PENALTIES FOR INDIVIDUALS

$1.7MIN PENALTIES FOR COMPANIES

$3M+ IN TURNOVER WILL REQUIRE MANDATORY NOTIFICATION

Things to consider

Do you know how to measure your cyber-risk?How much risk are you personally taking? How do these new rules impact you personally and what statutory obligations do your firm need to fulfil to be compliant?

CybersecurityThere has been a lot of discussion in the media around the challenges businesses face in combating cybersecurity threats.

With cybercrime now the number one economic crime in Australia, organisations of all sizes, across all industries, are falling victim to data breaches. As legal firms hold, or have access to, intellectual property or commercially sensitive information regarding their clients, it is inevitable they will be targets of cyberattacks. Firms must prepare for “cyber threats” and ensure robust preventative measures are in place and kept up to date to keep their data, and their clients’ data, safe and secure.

A number of recent cybersecurity attacks on law firms have forced firms to confront these realities. Despite this, only 13% of our survey respondents said they had a disaster recovery plan in place in the event of a cyberattack. This suggests the legal profession is still playing catch up with other industries when it comes to cybersecurity. Whilst large firms are doing a lot of work to protect themselves, smaller law firms may not have the resources or general awareness to tackle the threat.

From 22nd of February 2018, organisations with a turnover of $3 million or more will fall within the scope of the new Privacy Act measures requiring mandatory notification of cybersecurity breaches

Under the new laws, in the event of a breach, firms must demonstrate how they have complied with the relevant legislation and taken reasonable steps to protect the firm’s data and systems. Penalties of up to $1.7 million for companies, and $340,000 for individuals may be payable for non-compliance of new Privacy Act measures. These penalties do not include the cost of reparation for clients impacted by the breach. Firms should therefore evaluate their cybersecurity policies and incident reporting mechanisms to ensure they meet their obligations under the Privacy Amendment (Notifiable Data Breaches) Act 2017.

44%FIREWALLS/DATA ENCRYPTION/SECURE STORAGE

7%OTHER

14%IN HOUSE IT SECURITY

25%OUTSOURCED DATA SECURITY

10%DISASTER RECOVERY PLAN

ACTIONS FIRMS TAKE TO

PROTECT AGAINST CYBERSECURITY

THREATS

9

32%YES

68%NO

CHANGES TO STAFF RECRUITMENT AS A RESULT OF MARKET

CONDITIONS

Most common staff retention policies

82%FLEXIBLE WORK ARRANGEMENTS

63%LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

Attracting and retaining staff

Your firm needs to look like a place that people want to work. Given respondents identified attraction and retention of staff is a major challenge facing legal firms, it is important to pay attention to your firm’s brand and positioning during the recruitment process.With the majority of firms taking on graduates, the key is to consider how to provide growth opportunities during your graduate program and how you promote these ‘good news stories’ in the market. Firms should look to be known as the firm that provides those opportunities.

Not only with graduates but also with all levels of staff, it is important to recognise and exploit technology to attract staff. There is an increasing influence of social media in recruitment, therefore firms need to know what job seekers are looking at and for in order to keep up in the war for talent.

After you have attracted and hired staff, the key is working to retain them.

Induction is critical in retaining staff, with the decision to stay most often made within the first 6 months of employment (Aberdeen Group). Once people have decided to stay, keeping them is often related to the clarity of their career pathway:

• Do people know where they are at and what they need to do to get to the next step?

• Is there are clear pathway for progression?

• Is the pathway based on tenure or merit?

10

Our outlook for the futureAs firms and partners look to the future, the key areas of focus are continually changing. Acquisition, nationalisation and strategic alliances no longer appear to be the main strategies firms need to look at for growth.

Things to consider

Do you regularly consider the strength of relationships with your clients?Where are the next leaders of the firm going to come from?

56% YESDO YOU MEASURE BILLABLE HOURS?

44% NO

Firms need to be proactive, nimble and open to continual reinvention in areas such as:

ACCEPTANCE & CONTINUANCEDownward pricing pressure

will remain. Firms need to regularly review client

acceptance and continuance policies and offer alternative

pricing models

TECHNOLOGYTechnology should be

embraced as an enabler of better client service delivery

OUTSOURCINGOutsourcing of both back-office operations and low

value legal work will be essential to reduce cost and

improve efficiency

BUSINESS DEVELOPMEMTOnline marketing and social

media should be seen as key business development tools and be part of each

firm’s strategic plan

ADVICE A clear focus on achieving

the trusted advisor role with clients, by providing commercial and strategic advice, rather than purely technical legal opinion. In response, firms should be

looking for employees with broad knowledge bases

rather than those who only purely have good grades

AUTOMATE PROCESSESLawyers with a good understanding of and

competency with technology will likely thrive as firms

increasingly use technology to serve clients, automate processes and work across

the jurisdictions

FUTURE PLANNINGAttention needs to be

paid to recruitment and development processes to develop lawyers and partners of the future

11

Our commercial services to dynamic businesses

Financial essentials• Accounting and Business

Advisory Services• Audit, Risk Management

and Assurance• Internal Audit• Recovery, Turnarounds

and Insolvency• Tax Advice and Compliance

Planning and growth• Business Consulting

and Commercial Advice• Business Performance Improvement• Business Structuring• Corporate Finance• Corporate Governance• International Business Advisory• Investment Advisory Services• Succession Planning• Superannuation Services• Tax Consulting• Technology and IT Consulting• Valuations

Our private wealth services• Estate Planning• Family Office Management• Investment Advisory Services• Philanthropy Services• Succession Planning• Superannuation Strategies• Tax Advice and Compliance

Industry specialisations• Agriculture• Food and beverage• Government and the public sector• Health and aged care• Hospitality• IT/technology• Manufacturing• Not for profit• Professional services• Property and construction• Retail

$3.4bnWorldwide revenue 2017 (USD)

147Territories

33,600+Partners and staff globally

115Partners nationwide

1,100+People nationally

About Pitcher PartnersPitcher Partners is a full service accounting and business advisory firm with a strong reputation for providing quality advice to privately-owned, corporate and public organisations.In Australia, Pitcher Partners has firms in Adelaide, Brisbane, Melbourne, Newcastle, Perth, and Sydney. We collaboratively leverage each other’s networks and draw on the skills and expertise of 1,100+ staff, in order to service our clients.

Pitcher Partners is also an independent member of Baker Tilly International, one of the world’s leading networks of independently owned and managed accountancy and business advisory firms. Our strong relationship with other Baker Tilly International member firms, particularly in Asia Pacific, has allowed us to open many doors across borders for our clients.

Pitcher Partners is a national association of independent firms.Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

12

MELBOURNE

Brendan Britten | Managing Partner +61 3 8610 5000 partners@pitcher.com.au

ADELAIDE

Tom Verco | Managing Principal +61 8 8179 2800 partners@pitcher-sa.com.au

SYDNEY

Rob Southwell | Managing Partner +61 2 9221 2099 sydneypartners@pitcher.com.au

BRISBANE

Nigel Fischer | Managing Partner +61 7 3222 8444 partners@pitcherpartners.com.au

PERTH

Leon Mok | Managing Partner +61 8 9322 2022 partners@pitcher-wa.com.au

NEWCASTLE

Michael Minter | Managing Partner +61 2 4911 2000 newcastle@pitcher.com.au

Firm locations

Pitcher Partners is a national association of independent firms. Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

Pitcher Partners has the resources and depth of expertise of a major firm, but with a smaller firm feel. We give our clients the highest level of personal service and attention. That’s the difference.

13

2018_legal-survey_national_180226

Get in touch...

MELBOURNE

Brendan Britten | Managing Partner +61 3 8610 5000 partners@pitcher.com.au

ADELAIDE

Tom Verco | Managing Principal +61 8 8179 2800 partners@pitcher-sa.com.au

SYDNEY

Rob Southwell | Managing Partner +61 2 9221 2099 sydneypartners@pitcher.com.au

BRISBANE

Nigel Fischer | Managing Partner +61 7 3222 8444 partners@pitcherpartners.com.au

PERTH

Leon Mok | Managing Director +61 8 9322 2022 partners@pitcher-wa.com.au

PITCHER.COM.AU

NEWCASTLE

Michael Minter | Managing Partner +61 2 4911 2000 newcastle@pitcher.com.au

Pitcher Partners is an association of independent firms. Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

Ashley Davidson MELBOURNEBusiness, Tax and Advisory Partner

+61 3 8610 5327ashley.davidson@pitcher.com.au

Michael Minter NEWCASTLEManaging Partner

+61 2 4911 2000michael.minter@pitcher.com.au

Peter Camenzuli BRISBANEBusiness Advisory Partner

+61 7 3222 8444PCamenzuli@pitcherpartners.com.au

Tom Verco ADELAIDEManaging Principal

+61 8 8179 2800tom.verco@pitcher-sa.com.au

Leon Mok PERTHTaxation Services Managing Director

+61 9322 2022mokl@pitcher-wa.com.au

Rob Southwell SYDNEYManaging Partner

+61 2 8236 7724rob.southwell@pitcher.com.au