Most law firm leaders know realization is a problem worth solving. The harder question is where to begin.
The answer changes depending on what is happening inside the firm. Firms that start in the wrong place often generate activity without results, which is how improvement programs lose support before meaningful change occurs.
Three practitioners who work on this problem across mid-sized law firms shared distinct starting points in a recent webinar hosted by SurePoint Technologies with Scan Logic and Blickstein Group. Each reflects a different diagnosis and path to improvement. Below are the three, what they look like in practice, and how to determine which one applies.
1. Start with the data when the cause is unclear.
Rick Hellers, CEO and Co-Founder of Scan Logic, described the starting point that applies to most firms encountering this problem for the first time.
“The question firms should be asking is not how much revenue was lost. It is why. That shift changes what the data is used for.”
– Rick Hellers, CEO and Co-Founder, Scan Logic
Hellers recommends to pull 90 days of billing reductions and write-offs, and then organize them by cause rather than amount. Most firms that complete this exercise find the same result—a meaningful share of lost revenue traces to a small number of recurring situations. In some cases, billing guidelines for a specific client have not been fully mapped by the team. In others, a task code consistently results in billing reductions when they fall outside a client’s billing guidelines. Firms may also discover appeal windows that routinely close before a follow-up occurs.
The patterns were present before the exercise. They were not visible because the data had never been organized to surface them.
Once causes are identified, the path forward is prioritization. Address the highest-frequency issue, establish a baseline, and measure the result.
2. Start with operational friction when progress has stalled.
Olivia Mockel, Chief Market Strategy Officer at SurePoint, described a situation common in firms that already have reporting in place but are not seeing results change.
“Before evaluating any technology, find where people are leaving the system. The spreadsheet someone built to compensate for a process gap is usually a more accurate map of where the operation is breaking down than any formal process diagram.”
– Olivia Mockel, Chief Market Strategy Officer, SurePoint Technologies
Mockel recommends starting with a process map covering the billing operation end to end. The goal is to find where information is re-entered, where employees leave core systems to complete work in spreadsheets, and where a task depends on the institutional knowledge of one or two people.
Those friction points are where the process breaks down. Addressing them does not require a platform change. It requires identifying the specific moments where the current process fails and removing those barriers systematically.
Firms that take this approach often find that realization metrics begin to move before any technology changes occur. The data was accurate. The process was the constraint.
3. Start with objectives when improvement efforts lose focus.
Brad Blickstein of Blickstein Group has observed realization improvement programs across a wide range of firms. His perspective addresses a specific pattern that repeats frequently.
“The projects that stall are rarely ones with the wrong approach. They are ones where the original objective quietly shifted and nobody stopped to notice.”
– Brad Blickstein, Blickstein Group
As improvement projects progress, priorities shift. New stakeholders introduce different requirements. A promising tool or approach pulls attention toward something adjacent to the original goal. Six months into the effort, the team is working, but the work has drifted from what it set out to accomplish.
Blickstein recommends defining success in specific, measurable terms before any changes are made. The objective should be concrete enough to evaluate. Writing it down and revisiting it when decisions need to be made provides a consistent reference point throughout the project.
Firms that establish this discipline at the outset are better positioned to maintain focus when priorities shift, because they have a documented standard to measure decisions against.
A diagnostic before a decision.
Rick Hellers, Olivia Mockel, and Brad Blickstein each described a different starting point for improving realization. The right one depends on the challenge the firm is trying to solve.
If the cause of revenue leakage is unclear, start with the data. If the process is creating friction, start with the operation. If prior improvement efforts lost momentum, start with the objective.
The common thread is diagnosis. Firms that understand what is driving the problem are better positioned to choose the right approach for solving it.
Once the problem is understood, firms can determine where better processes, automation, or human-in-the-loop technology can reduce friction and improve consistency. From there, the focus shifts from identifying the problem to addressing it.
Once the source of the issue is clear, firms can prioritize the work, define success, and move forward with greater confidence.
Rick Hellers, Olivia Mockel, and Brad Blickstein spoke at Full Realization: Turning Billing Complexity Into a Competitive Advantage, a webinar hosted by SurePoint Technologies and Scan Logic on August 19, 2026. The recording is available here.
Improving Realization Starts with Visibility
Protecting earned revenue requires visibility across the full financial operation. SurePoint’s Finance Solutions gives financial leaders the insight and controls to act on what the data shows. Learn More >
