The Real Reason Admin Staffing Models Do Not Hold Up in Law Firms

Most law firms rely on established staffing ratios to manage administrative teams. Those ratios provide a sense of control, but they rarely tell the full story. In our experience, firms assume that if the numbers look right on paper, coverage must be adequate in practice.

The problem is not the math. It is the assumption of consistency. Legal work does not arrive in steady increments, and administrative demand does not distribute evenly. When firms rely too heavily on rigid staffing models, cracks appear quickly.

Why Administrative Demand Is Fundamentally Uneven

Legal work is deadline-driven, reactive, and often unpredictable. A single filing deadline, deal closing, or trial prep window can create intense demand that lasts days or weeks, followed by relative quiet. Attorneys also vary widely in how they use support. Some rely heavily on assistants. Others serve themselves until the workload suddenly spikes.

As a result, support demand fluctuates not only by department, but by individual attorney and by week. No static ratio can reflect that reality.

The Mismatch Between Staffing Models and Real Workload

Traditional staffing models assume a relatively even flow of tasks. In law firms, it is not just the volume of work that changes. Urgency, timing, and concentration of need matter just as much.

One assistant may be overwhelmed while another has capacity, and the structure provides no way to rebalance work quickly. Informal coverage fills the gap, but that comes at the cost of burnout, delays, and uneven service. From leadership’s perspective, the model still looks intact, even as strain builds underneath.

How Peak Demand Exposes Structural Weaknesses

Imbalanced staffing models often survive when things are calm. Peak demand is what exposes them.

When deadlines stack up or staff are unexpectedly out, firms begin to rely heavily on a few high performers. Requests slow down or fall through the cracks. Quality suffers. Pressure increases, and support staff start to disengage or leave altogether.

Without a coverage model designed to flex, the firm remains vulnerable to disruption at exactly the moments when reliability matters most.

Why Adding Headcount Rarely Fixes the Issue

When support feels strained, the instinct is often to hire. Additional headcount may provide short-term relief, but it rarely solves the underlying problem.

New hires step into the same unclear expectations, inconsistent workflows, and outdated coverage assumptions. Over time, the firm ends up with higher costs and the same structural limitations. The model has not changed, only the number of people operating within it.

A More Realistic Approach to Administrative Coverage

A stronger approach starts with understanding how work actually flows through the firm. That means looking beyond ratios and focusing on demand patterns.

Effective models map daily workload by role and department, identify predictable peaks, clarify which tasks belong where, and design flexible coverage that can shift as demand changes. In many cases, this also includes a more intentional blend of in-house and outsourced resources, aligned to real usage rather than assumptions.

When coverage is built around actual demand, firms gain efficiency and resilience at the same time.

Case Study: Aligning Staffing Design With Real Administrative Demand

Holland & Knight, an Am Law 100 firm with a large national footprint, engaged Mattern to address rising administrative costs and inconsistent service delivery across offices. Leadership had staffing models in place, but those models assumed a level of consistency that did not reflect how work was actually flowing through the firm.

Mattern conducted a detailed analysis of administrative workload, demand patterns, and coverage models across locations. The review showed that while overall staffing levels appeared reasonable, demand spiked unevenly by office, practice, and time of month. Informal coverage and attorney workarounds were masking structural gaps, particularly during peak periods.

Using that data, the firm redesigned its administrative coverage model to better match real demand. Responsibilities were clarified, capacity was adjusted to absorb predictable spikes, and service expectations were aligned across offices. As part of the engagement, Holland & Knight reduced administrative costs while improving service consistency and visibility into ongoing staffing needs.

Most importantly, leadership moved away from static ratios and toward a staffing approach grounded in how the firm actually operates day to day.

The Mattern Perspective

Staffing models do not fail because people are doing the wrong work. They fail because the model does not reflect how legal work actually operates.

At Mattern, we help firms move beyond outdated frameworks and design administrative support systems that work in the real world, not just on paper. If your firm is questioning whether its staffing model can keep up with demand, we can help you find the answer. Contact info@matternassoc.com.