He stated the figure with the confidence of someone observing a favorable scoreboard: 90 open cases.
He’s a solo criminal defense attorney in the Midwest, earning approximately $450,000 annually. He charges a flat fee for each stage of a case. He contacted me in March to discuss renewing his scenario modeling engine I had built for him, and the 90 open cases were mentioned early in the conversation as evidence of ongoing demand. This example is a composite, reflecting the economics of real practices with all identifying details removed. The 90 open cases are attributed to him.
The count is accurate; it’s likely he could identify each of the 90 cases. This figure consolidates both newly opened matters and those with multiple court dates into a single metric, with each matter counted once. The 90 open cases represent both the volume of incoming work and the duration each matter remains active. This number does not indicate the amount of time he still needs to dedicate to each file.
He interprets the 90 open cases as a measure of demand, which is partially accurate. The key metric for a sole proprietorship is contribution per owner hour, defined as the revenue generated from a matter divided by the number of owner hours invested minus fees and expenses. Revisiting a file without generating additional fees decreases this metric, while the open case count remains unchanged.
Same count, different weeks
Consider two months in his practice, both composite examples, each displaying approximately 90 open files at the beginning of the month.
In the first month, the majority of the 90 cases were opened within the previous 8 weeks, with few continuances. Upcoming court work primarily consists of initial appearances and conferences, representing first-time efforts on these files.
In the second month, the composition of the 90 open cases differs. Using the same starting date for each file, a greater proportion have been open since spring, with more cases continued one or more times. Upcoming court dates now include hearings for which he has already prepared, requiring repeated preparation for previously scheduled dates.
The composite time data for these two months is illustrative. In the first month, 11 of the 90 files were on a second or subsequent court setting, resulting in approximately seven hours of work on previously prepared files. In the second month, 34 files were on a second or later setting, with about 29 hours logged for repeat preparation. Stage fee collections remained around $37,000 each month, as his terms don’t permit additional stage fees for repeated work on the same stage.
Despite the same open case count and similar revenue in both months, approximately 22 additional hours in the second month were devoted to files previously prepared in the first month. Assuming other factors remain constant, this results in a lower contribution per owner hour, even though the open case count remains unchanged.
Why the old files hold the week
The National Center for State Courts analyzed approximately 1.2 million felony and misdemeanor cases from 136 courts across 21 states (data collected prior to the pandemic). Their findings indicate that time to disposition is influenced by two factors per case: continuances and hearings. In their model, each additional continuance extends the case by approximately three weeks. The report also highlights the cost to attorneys when preparatory work for a hearing must be repeated due to rescheduling.
These three weeks represent calendar time measured by the court. For the attorney, this results in the file returning to his workload.
Under a fixed stage fee arrangement, repeating work increases owner hours without generating additional revenue. Whether the original fee accounted for these extra hours depends on the engagement’s pricing structure. Some flat-fee agreements include such contingencies, but if the terms cover only one round of preparation and the court requires two, the additional effort goes uncompensated.
Delays may result from various factors, including actions by the prosecutor’s office, court scheduling, late discovery, client needs, or strategic defense considerations. Many continuances are appropriate and serve the interests of the client and due process. The primary concern is the cost to the owner, a decision made jointly with the client. Much of the case aging is beyond the attorney’s control, so the open case count may increase without corresponding new demand.
A significant challenge arises when older files require attention during the same week as new matters. When capacity is strained, the focus often shifts to new intake, which appears to be the primary source of workload. Files on their third or subsequent settings also consume substantial time, yet their impact is less visible in standard metrics.
What his reports can’t produce
His case management system and the court’s records contain extensive data, including court dates, file status, whether hearings occurred or were continued, and the reasons for continuances. Court data standards provide separate fields for open, inactive, and closed files, and record both the reason for continuance and hearing outcomes. This provides a comprehensive history of each file and how often it returns.
The time spent revisiting files isn’t captured in standard metrics, which is the focus of contribution per owner hour. Industry time metrics are typically based on billable hours. According to Clio’s 2026 Legal Trends Report (released October 26), projected utilization is 42% in 2026 (up from 39%), with the average lawyer recording 3.4 billable hours per day. In a stage-fee billing model, there is no billing entry for repeated work on the same stage, so these hours are excluded from such metrics. The key question for this firm is whether the continued presence of a matter on the calendar reflects the actual hours invested.
Monitoring case age relative to the applicable time standard, measured consistently from a single starting point, is essential. The court’s timeline begins when the complaint is filed, which may precede the attorney’s involvement, so choose and stick to a consistent start date.
If you want a first go at your own firm’s numbers then the GrowthProLegal scorecard is at growthprolegal.com/scorecard.
Look out for the new Growth, Scenario & Predictive Modeling engines at growthprolegal.com in November 2026!
This is general information only and should not be regarded as legal or accounting advice. The firm referred to is a composite and no client, court or case is in any way identified.
The analysis in this letter is produced under Revenue Intelligence & Decision Architecture (RIDA) which is the proprietary economic discipline that B.L. Sheets & Co. runs on and runs for the firms it serves. The doctrine, the case record and the engagement formats are all at blsheets.co.