sa.global insight: why ‘reasonable’ may be the most expensive word in your firm’s onboarding process
Ask a law firm CFO to rate their onboarding and most will land somewhere in the same comfortable middle. Good. Reasonable. Nothing to alarm us. Not one respondent in the Briefing Live CFO research rated their firm’s onboarding as very strong. The market has found a settled position and it calls it adequate.
That answer is honest. What it reveals, though, is how the process has been classified. When CFOs describe onboarding as reasonable, they are describing it as an administrative function that runs well enough. That classification is the source of a great deal of downstream cost that is never traced back to where it originated. The Briefing Live CFO research quantifies that gap: nearly half of CFOs sit at 50/50 confidence or below that their onboarding data is accurate enough to support clean billing. The process is considered adequate. The data it produces is not trusted to carry the weight of what comes after it.
The first commercial decision, misread as a formality
Onboarding sits at the start of the financial lifecycle, and the decisions made there, whether the rate structure gets properly agreed or left to assumption, whether scope is documented before work starts or negotiated under friction months later, whether billing preferences are captured once and carried forward or renegotiated at the first invoice. All of those decisions either happen at onboarding or they happen later, at considerably greater cost. The moment firms classify onboarding as administrative; they stop treating those decisions as decisions at all.
There is a cost that sits even earlier than the data confidence gap the Briefing Live CFO research makes visible. Work begins before matters are formally open. Fee earners start recording time before the matter record exists in the system, noting it with the intention of allocating it correctly once the matter is created. In practice, that back-allocation is rarely complete. Estimates point to 3-5% of billable value being lost in this pre-matter window alone, not as a write-off that appears in any report but as time that was simply never captured against a matter in the first place.
The research makes the downstream gap between process confidence and data confidence visible. Although, nearly half of CFOs sit at 50/50 or below when asked whether their onboarding data is accurate enough to support clean billing. For a significant portion of the market, the process feels acceptable and the data it produces is not trusted to carry the weight of what comes next: matter management, billing, and collection.
Partial is not the same as functional
The systems integration score from the Briefing Live CFO research sits at 6.3 out of 10. That number deserves attention not because it is catastrophically low but because it is comfortably below the standard that connected, intelligence-driven billing requires. Partial integration is the norm. Data flows between some systems some of the time, exceptions are handled manually, and the gaps are managed by people rather than surfaced by the system.
At that level of integration, onboarding data cannot be trusted as the foundation for clean billing because it is not a foundation. It is a patchwork. And a patchwork built at the start of a matter does not improve as the matter progresses. It compounds.
What ‘reasonable’ is actually costing
The comfort of reasonable is that it does not demand investigation. If onboarding is broadly adequate, the problems that follow it must originate somewhere else. Each issue gets managed at the stage where it surfaces. Billing disputes belong to the billing team. Collection friction sits with credit control. Invoice adjustments are an invoicing problem. The diagnosis follows the symptom, not the cause.
The data suggests that most of those downstream costs have onboarding in their origin story. The commercial terms that were never properly locked, the billing preferences that were assumed rather than confirmed, the data that entered one system and did not reach the next: by the time these surface as disputes or adjustments, their connection to onboarding is invisible. And sitting behind all of them is an earlier failure – the time recorded before any system had a matter to record it against. These are onboarding failures. They just do not look like it by the time they become visible.
The question is not whether your onboarding is good enough. Most CFOs have already decided it is. The more useful question is: good enough compared to what? If the standard is a process that produces clean data, locked commercial terms, and an integrated foundation for everything that follows, then reasonable may be more expensive than it appears.
How sa.global addresses this
The misclassification of onboarding as an administrative function is largely a systems problem. When onboarding data lives across disconnected tools, it cannot function as a commercial foundation. And when matters open late relative to when work has already begun, the billable value lost in that pre-matter window is rarely recovered. The Microsoft Industry Cloud for Law Firms, built on Dynamics 365 and delivered through sa.global’s evergreen platform, is designed to close both gaps from the first matter interaction.
Read more here
