Buying Turnover

Times are tough - and lawyers in England and Wales are certainly noticing.

In these straightened times, it seems that firms and chambers are reacting by wanting to appear successful and strong. I have discussed at length the difficulties of firms using the right measurement and the fascination that stills seems strong for the use of turnover as the primary measurement. Turnover is up and so we must be doing well - that seems to be the system in place.

Sadly, even though firms tend to use turnover because it is the easiest to understand and to feel that you are affecting, increasing turnover is not that simple.

Lawyers can't simply put their prices up. They are being squeezed in every area - and those involved in publicly-funded work and being squeezed more than any. Clients have a bit of an upper hand at the moment - meaning that prices are, if anything, going down or at least remaining constant. It is a brave client partner or senior clerk who discusses an increase in rates.

So where is this perceived success to come from. Where are firms and sets to find the increased turnover?

Simple - they are buying it. Much of the legal news at the moment is about mergers or acquisitions. Whether it is Herbert Smith Freehills, Norton Rose Fulbright, or Finers and Howard Kennedy, firms are looking to bring extra turnover into the firm by the simple expedient of merging with another firm. They're almost all at it - Field Fisher Waterhouse are still trying after a number of false starts.

This may well be a normal and even sensible reaction to a difficult market - but much like an endlessly-upward equity market, its not sustainable growth. In fact its not really growth at all. The market is, if anything shrinking and so the apparent growth gained from mergers is simple re-allocation of turnover within a market.

It is possible, in fact, that there will be a downward blip in turnover as the newly merged firm works out what it is doing and as it reassures clients from both firms. Profitability will certainly be affected, at least in the short term - there will be layoff costs, integration costs and, usually, there is a good deal of marketing and PR to be done, to explain to clients and the market why the merger has been a tremendous thing.

Perhaps a little more time spent on planning and implementing more profitable work would be a more efficient use of the time spent? I don't object to mergers - but let's not pretend that we are generating real  sustainable growth, or that we are doing anything that create a strategic advantage.

The Matter Gross Profit.

In an earlier post, I discussed the sort of measurements that most firms could be using and the different view of the firm that they provide.

So what?

Well the point of finding and using better measurements is to provide a better record for managers to be able to run the firm in a more efficient and effective manner - or just better. Most law firms tend to have fairly short term views of their own success. You will see many items in the legal press highlighting increases in either turnover and/or PEP 'compared to last year'. It is, however, trends that are important rather than one year 'blips', whether upward or downward. By looking at the trend in the firm over a five or ten year period, even turnover can become interesting and useful. By looking at that period, it becomes quickly apparent which years are anomalies  - and so which sets of results should be set to one side when deciding if the firm is successful.

So having decided that a longer term view is sensible, just what trends should you be watching? Although most law firms enjoy talking about PEP and turnover, by far the best measurement is a long term examination of 'Matter Gross Profit' - that is turnover less direct costs and staff costs (including partner remuneration). This is a measurement of profit that helps to focus fee earners on those aspects of a matter that they can most easily influence - the price and the allocation of work.

Continuing the examples form the previous blog entry, the Matter GP figures do not look good:

The Matter GP percentage is reducing:

It is possible, therefore, to conclude that the firm is less efficient than before, even though, as previously discussed, it would probably think of itself as successful.

The Matter GP measurement can be used by the firm to reverse the trend (together with sensible cost-control measures). All fee earning staff should be bonused not on hours billed or turnover - but on achieving a Matter GP target for their section, department and for the firm as a whole. In this way, every fee earner is motivated directly to consider the profitability of work and will find that it is not in their interest to simply throw resources at a matter as a deadline looms.


Much more about this subject and about firm governance is available in my new Report, available from the Ark Group (publishers of Managing Partner magazine). Follow this link for details.

The Right Numbers

In the last few weeks I seem to be concentrating on financial analysis for and with clients. I have worked both with sole traders and with larger, multi-million pound organisations, and with both sorts of organisations I have led discussions about which of the metrics firms should be watching.

Any regular readers of this blog will know that I have a problem with firms spending too long (or indeed much time at all), watching or thinking about turnover - no matter how tempting it can be. With my sole trader clients I've had some very interesting discussions about accounting systems. As a non-accountant who has run accounts departments, I have some key reports I look for from accounting systems. For me, any system needs to be able to delivery quick, accurate and useful management accounts - reporting on cash flow, gross and net profit. I want to be able to see what money the firm is owed, what money the firm owes, who the aged debtors are, and the bank position.

In my own business, I use Kashflow (an online system which works on monthly subscription thereby meaning I can avoid a capital outlay for software - and that my data is backed up by Kashflow) which seems simple enough to use and which provides an opening dashboard to give me the information I need at a glance. I can also use an iPhone/iPad app to access my account information and so see it when travelling. There are a few competitors - Sage has just brought out a similar, cloud-based, product - but I like Kashflow, the price is good, and the online and email support is pretty good.

In larger firms, I try to introduce the concept of a 'Project Gross Profit' (or a 'Matter Gross Profit' in lw firms) - which examines Revenue and then accounts for direct costs and salaries to arrive at PGP. This is a way of examining the immediate profitability of individual projects or tasks while accounting for the most liquid of overheads - people. It is usually easy to allocate time to projects and tasks and so the calculation is simple. I also try to get this measurement adopted at the Costing stage - so that the firm can be sure that the work they are pitching for will be profitable, and not just some attractive-looking turnover.

Times are still quite tough for most firms, and so it is more important than ever to be sure that every project, every person and every task is providing profit to the firm - and that the firm has the information to be sure that this is happening.

Phew!

At last - I have finished the report I've been working on for a good few months.


Today is supposed to be the first day of our Christmas holiday, and my report was due with the publisher today - so yesterday I finished all the proof reading, gathered all the necessary files, and sent the lot off to my (very patient) editor.


The report is on the subjects of Governance and Measurements of Success in Law Firms - subjects that clients and regular readers will know are fascinations of mine. You may be glad to know that I'm not going to go into the detail of the report now - partly because I hope that you will all buy one (it's a thrilling read even if some of the characterisation is a little weak) and partly because I've thought of little else for the last few days and so am really glad to be thinking about almost anything else.


It's been interesting to set my thoughts in a structured way. Initially I was concerned that I might not be able to write 45,000 words on the subject - but towards the end the problem was more one of keeping to a maximum word count.


I hope that (a) you'll buy one when it is published (by the Ark Group - more details here) and (b) that you will at least find it useful and perhaps even enjoy it. Until it is published in the New Year, I'm planning to have a break, be very nice to my wife who has had to put up with me while I was writing it, and to catch up on some reading.


Have a wonderful holiday!

New Term - New Report

"The Lawyer" has just released it's "UK 200 Annual Report 2010" (which is available online here). It is interesting reading. There are a number of claims about new measurements - but the focus on revenue remains as does the industry's fascination with PEP.

I encourage you to have a thorough read of the report. What the suggests is that, by adopting new scales such as "Days to Profit" (on page 6 of the report), the magazine is keen to try to reduce the "gaming" of statistics that goes on. For example - an easy way to increase PEP is to reduce the number of applicable equity partners - something a number of the top firms have done. It's certainly easier (if perhaps more expensive in the long run) than trying to increase profit.

While the "Days to Profit" is interesting, I was more taken by the table on page 8 of the report showing the top firms by cost reduction. The report orders the firms by the size of the one-year reduction from last year to this, but for me the interesting numbers are those in the five-year difference in costs. The leading "one-year-cutter" is Freshfields who have cut their costs by 19.3% in one year. Without more detail I can't comment on the efficacy or long-term effect of this size of cuts, but it is, I will guess, related more to the booking of redundancy costs in the previous year than to anything else. Over the last five years, Freshfields have increased their costs by 22.93% which doesn't seem too bad. Hammonds show a five-year change of -5.9%, although I'm not sure I'd use Hammonds as s good example. Wragge & Co show restraint with a five-year increase of less than 10%. These longer period measurements are more useful because they avoid the peaks and troughs of "spend and cut" than tend to characterise the industry.

The tope four firms are analysed in some depth and their performance examined over five years, but with the rest of the firms in the listing, it is business as usual in terms of focussing on turnover, PEP and figures for a single year.

Surely if there is one thing that the last two years have taught us, it is that looking at performance for one year is now use at all in terms of examining the success of a firm. I look forward to the day when firms are ranked by their rolling five-year net profit, amongst other longer-term measurements.

Still - small steps, and the new measurements are better than before.

From the report, my highlights are:

• Barlow, Lyde and Gilbert for strong five-year cost reduction
• Beachcroft and Wragge & Co for doing well on the "Cost per Lawyer" category
• Dickson Minto for achieving 7th place in the "Revenue per Partner" list and performing well again in the "revenue per Lawyer" category
• Sacker & Partners for achieving 7th place in "Revenue per Lawyer"

What's the problem with PEP?

I had an interesting conversation yesterday. I was talking with a lawyer friend of mine (who will remain nameless) and was continuing on my recent theme of measurement within law firms and, specifically, the problems with PEP (profit per equity partner). I won't repeat my issues with PEP here - just have a look at my last post if you'd like to see what I think.

My lawyer friend is not a partner (yet). He suggested that, since he was going to be a partner, and since PEP was published for almost every firm, this measurement gave him a fine way to compare firms. Our conversation went something like:

"PEP is great - I can see which firm is best", he said.

"No - you can see which firm might give you the most money when you are an equity partner. PEP isn't a measurement of which is best"

"Well it's the same thing, really..."

I countered with a story about a mutual friend who is a corporate finance manager in a large company. He had recently moved firms and during the process had gone through the books of prospective firms in great detail, examining profit flows, balance sheet health, forward strategies and client surveys. Yes of course he was concerned about the amount he would be paid - but he was as concerned that the company he was about to join was healthy.

PEP gives no idea about the health of the firm. Look at the results from Shoosmiths (as published by Roll on Friday). They have published an increase in PEP of 70% despite a decrease in revenues of 9% - and have issued a statement that this has been possible because of "...developing existing clients and ...winning new ones". Just to repeat - they have managed to take more money out of the firm, even though less came in. Not only that - but they justify this by saying that they have "developed clients". What does this tell us about the health of the firm. On the face of it, nothing at all. In fact, however, it suggests that Shoosmiths either have no idea about forward planning and building reserves, and so are content to pump money out of the firm at the very time that it needs it - or that they are content to paint a rosy picture to prospective employees and partners. Neither is very good at all. I am not suggesting that Shoosmiths are any worse than any other law firm. The majority of the larger firms (by revenue) have posted similar increases in PEP and decreases in revenues - while suggesting that this is good.

I suggest that prospective partners look well beyond revenue and PEP before moving from one firm to another. At the very least I suggest that they:

• Look at five years worth of balance sheets to see
• the ration of liabilities to assets
• the amount of band debt written off
• reserves
• Look at the strategy of the firm and whether it has actually been implemented
• Look at the marketing strategy of the firm to see if it actively supports the firm strategy and whether pervious measures of success have been achieved
• Look at staff and partner satisfaction surveys
• Look at client satisfaction surveys
• See evidence of business training for partners - after all, you will probably be asked to take some sort of role in the management of the firm.

If a firm is unable to supply any of the above - if, for example, they have no firm measurements of success for marketing or do not take satisfaction surveys - I'd be a little worried. It might not be a deal-breaker, but it's a large red flag that suggests that the firm you are looking at may not be amongst the "best" after all - no matter how much money they might give you.

Understanding the Numbers

Revenue down - bad. PEP up - good! That seems to be the message from the industry as published by The Lawyer (see here). The top 30 firms (as always, measured by revenue) have shown a drop in revenues of nearly £0.5 billion. "Don't worry", would appear to be the message, "PEP has risen".

I know that this has been a theme of mine recently, but let's just see what this means.

Revenues down
This means that clients are spending less. There is a smaller amount of money in the industry. It's not a small sum of money, either. The industry has contracted significantly and so almost the same number of firms (sorry Halliwells) will be chasing a smaller pool of work.

In any other industry this would see prices fall as market power moves to the client and would see businesses doing everything that was required to get their organisation through the difficult times - cost control, improvements in efficiency, increasing or using reserves as required (this is the rainy day that every firm should have been saving for).

Firms have been talking about cost controls - but for most law firms this means firing people. Care needs to be taken, however, since there are significant costs associated with both firing and with hiring staff - redundancy payments, legal fees, lost work time for meetings, poor use of executive time, recruitment charges, "ramp up" costs (as new staff find their feet in a new environment) etc etc. The last time I did a calculation for a law firm, it was cheaper to retain an associate if they were likely to be fired and then someone hired 17 months later. Let me repeat that - it was cheaper for the firm to pay an associate to sit at their desk doing nothing than for the firm to fire them and buy someone else in 17 months later. Never mind the fact that there would be some useful work for them to do - or the PR/HR benefits in being seen to retain staff wherever possible.

I'm not seeing many efficiency improvements. Many firms seem unaware that they have processes never mind looking to see how these could be made more efficient. As for reserves - most law firms seem to think that these are not necessary. I'm am amazed that there is no appetite to smooth out the highs and lows in PEP. Reducing pay outs in the good years would enable a smaller reduction in the bad. May daughter understood this piggy-back mentality when she was ten...

PEP Up
At first glance this seems to be good news - Profit per Equity Partner has gone up. Surely if profit has improved that is a good thing? Yes - except that PEP does not simply measure net profit. PEP is a measure of the net profit that has left the firm. This is the amount of money that the Equity Partners removed from the firm to their own accounts.

Why would firms boast about this? I will never understand why the most favoured measurement of a firm says "look how much we've stripped from the firm!". I don't know of any other industry that makes such a noise about partner or executive payments.

What would be more impressive for the good of the firm would be a measurement of retained profit or a statement of reserves. Why have law firms not been building up reserves to see them through this sort of market? Yes, there are tax advantages in the way things are done now - but this is a very short term view of business.

What is unfortunate is that PEP makes lawyers as a whole and partners in particular look greedy.

Neither revenue nor PEP should be the numbers the industry discusses. Let's look at simple net profit or retained profits or profit per fee earner over five years - or the trend in profit per fee earner or partner over five and ten years. These are useful measurements which focus on the firm rather than on the industry or the personal interests of the partners.

Apples and Oranges

Following from my last past, I shall continue my theme of "measuring the correct thing".

For the last few days the media, and the BBC in particular, have been obsessed with the publication of the salary of civil servants who earn over £150k - or, as the BBC insisted of describing it "more than the Prime Minister". I'm all in favour of the publication of salaries - certainly in publicly funded bodies - but the comparison is unfortunate at best. The salary of a civil servant and the Prime Minister should not be compared - the jobs are not similar, the attraction of the jobs are different, the motivations of those in post are different, and the period of employment is significantly different. The last three Prime Ministers have gone on to earn good seven figure salaries having left office, and there is nothing to make me think that the most recent ex-PM should be any different. Comparing the two simply causes confusion - does it mean that the PM is underpaid or that the civil servants should be given a pay cut?

The reason that I mention this is that the same confusion is caused when firms insist on focussing on the wrong numbers - revenue and PEP, for example. There are plenty of examples - Olswang are happy that their PEP has risen by 38% while revenue rose by 2% (and are happy with the phrase "a draconian line on discretionary spend" worryingly). Eversheds published an increase in PEP of 28% while revenue dropped.

I had said this many times before, but it would appear to need repeating  - these are the wrong numbers to be concentrating on.

PEP is a measure of personal wealth - not a measure of how well any firm is working. It does not measure client satisfaction, client retention, long term planning, quality management - or any other useful indicator. The only thing it says is "look how much the partners here earn!". What other industry does that. I can probably find out what the partners at KPMG earn - but it's not easy. I tried to find out what the partners at the Brunswick Group LLP - but couldn't. That's probably because, as experts in communications, they understand that to boast about partner pay is not useful or sensible.

I may never understand why law partners both insist on using PEP as a measurement and then actually publishing it. It would be wonderful if the industry would move towards measurements based on the firm. Let's look at firm profitability, or an increase in profitability over a period, or increase in client satisfaction or any of the measurements used by most other types of companies.

The time has come for law firms to join the "sensible measurement club". Please.

Marketing Success vs. Business Success

I seem to have been talking a lot over the last few weeks about marketing and social media.

As someone who has fairly recently started a new business, I knew that I would be spending a great deal of time marketing and developing the business. What I hadn't really thought about too much was the difference between marketing success and business success - or perhaps I simply hadn't considered the measurement of marketing in any depth before.

I the time that I have been "trading", both solo and with James Dunning at Geotrupes, we have gained reasonable press exposure, spoken at two conferences, gained followers on Twitter and for our blogs, and undoubtedly raised awareness of our business. These can all be considered marketing successes.

What has been interesting, however, is the link to business success. No matter how many followers we have, and no matter how wonderful our websites are (and I think they are of course), none of this matters if it doesn't lead to business - i.e. to income.

I spoke with a good friend of mine who has had (and is having) a long a glorious career in international media and marketing. I asked him about the link between marketing and business success. Only after I agreed to his anonymity did he admit that he (and apparently his industry) goes to huge lengths to avoid that link and to stop clients measuring business success by business success. It would appear to be, if not all smoke and mirrors, then at least most smoke and mirrors.

My point is this - don't get caught up in marketing for marketing's sake. Always measure your marketing in business terms. Enforce the link and make sure your marketing is paying off in real terms.

Pick Your Ranking

"The Lawyer" has published its "UK 200 Annual Report 2009" - and it makes interesting reading. I'm sure that I will comment on it again - I've still got to read it through a few times - but today I'd like to focus on the importance of rankings.

Most lawyers are reasonably obsessed about their ranking. How many readers, however, will ask questions about the rankings? "We're the 5th largest firm in the UK" says firm A - without revealing that this is based on average weight of partners. The ranking is useless unless you, as a reader, know what the ranking is and how it is calculated.

The table above (click on it to see it enlarged) shows rankings for ten firms based on the various measurements used by "The Lawyer" in its report. I decided to use the 1st, 11th, 21st, 31st, 41st, 51st, 61st, 71st, 81st and 91st firm as ranked in the PEP (Profit per Equity Partner) to select the firms. Not very scientific, I admit, but at least comparatively random. I then looked for the ranking for these firms in different measurements - Net Profit, Revenue per Partner, Revenue per Lawyer and "The Lawyer's" own "Top 200" ranking.

There was a wide range in the rankings. Even Slaughter & May (ranked number 1 for PEP) was down in 7th as far as "The Lawyer" ranking was concerned. Berryman Lace Mawer ranged from 48th to 151st depending on which ranking you select. I suspect that Taylor Wessing will use their 17th ranking rather than their ranking of 76th for Revenue per Partner.

My point is this: rankings do not provide much in the way of information. They are not a measurement of worth, or of quality. Provision of professional services is a person to person business and so why should we care that Slaughters are ranked number 1 for PEP? I think we should all try to stop worrying about ranking and concentrate on the value that we provide to our clients.

Peter Blair is the Director of Mar-aon Consulting - ranked #1 in the UK*

*in a survey paid for and carried out by Mar-aon Consulting.

Statistics, Damned Lies, and Context

The legal press is enjoying itself at the moment in reporting falls in PEP figures. Both "The Lawyer" and "Legal Week" have published lists recently.

Not quite at random, I decided to have a look at a few firms either side of the £100m mark (using 2009 revenue as data). Before I continue with the analysis, I should like to repeat a mantra I learnt at London Business School: "Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity and cashflow is reality". I frequently mention my concerns at the measurements used in law firms - particularly a delight in reporting revenue figures (which really don't mean much and can fool lawyers into taking work with lots of turnover and no profit). Having said that, the numbers seem striking at first pass.

Firstly let's look at revenue in 2008 and 2009 (as reported in "The Lawyer):

Firm Name	2009 Rev(£M)	2008 Rev(£M)	% change
Linklaters	1,300	1,293	0.54%
Freshfields	1,290	1,180	9.32%
Clifford Chance	1,260	1,330	(5.26%)
Lovells	531	479	10.86%
Eversheds	366	390	(6.15%)
Norton Rose Group	314	297	5.72%
Ashurst	301	323	(6.81%)
CMS Cameron McKenna	240	236	1.91%
Taylor Wessing	188	185	1.67%
Clyde & Co LLP	185	157	17.83%
Addleshaw Goddard	173	195	(11.41%)
Denton Wilde Sapte LLP	170	164	3.28%
Nabarro	127	142	(11.17%)
Beachcroft LLP	121	114	6.14%
Trowers	90	78	15.34%
Stephenson Harwood	85	85	(0.23%)
Hill Dickinson	82	73	12.18%
WFW	74	59	24.58%
Charles Russell LLP	70	71	(1.70%)
Kennedys	67	52	30.68%
DWF	60	55	8.68%
Dickinson Dees LLP	54	60	(10.33%)
Mishcon de Reya	47	47	0.42%
Shepherd & Wedderburn	40	43	(7.04%)
TLT LLP	39	41	(4.88%)
Manches	34	34	(0.87%)
Morgan Cole	34	32	4.36%
Bircham Dyson Bell	32	36	(8.73%)

Across this group, the average increase in revenue is 2.82%. The average of the top 50 firms in 2007/2008 was 12.5% according to "Legal Week".

Now PEP for the same group in the same period:

Firm Name	2009 PEP	2008 PEP	PEP % change
Linklaters	1,302	1,440	(9.58%)
Freshfields	1,440	1,440	0.00%
Clifford Chance	733	1,150	(36.26%)
Lovells	585	661	(11.50%)
Eversheds	404	552	(26.81%)
Norton Rose Group	517	625	(17.28%)
Ashurst	673	1,040	(35.29%)
CMS Cameron McKenna	554	650	(14.77%)
Taylor Wessing	369	457	(19.26%)
Clyde & Co LLP	550	550	0.00%
Addleshaw Goddard	405	586	(30.89%)
Denton Wilde Sapte LLP	300	470	(36.17%)
Nabarro	375	610	(38.52%)
Beachcroft LLP	301	310	(2.90%)
Trowers	509	515	(1.17%)
Stephenson Harwood	610	620	(1.61%)
Hill Dickinson	294	312	(5.77%)
WFW	430	424	1.42%
Charles Russell LLP	235	390	(39.74%)
Kennedys	350	300	16.67%
DWF	260	350	(25.71%)
Dickinson Dees LLP	150	336	(55.36%)
Mishcon de Reya	575	740	(22.30%)
Shepherd & Wedderburn	230	311	(26.05%)
TLT LLP	198	268	(26.12%)
Manches	209	227	(7.93%)
Morgan Cole	218	241	(9.54%)
Bircham Dyson Bell	230	312	(26.28%)

Across this group, the average decrease in PEP was 18.1% compared with an average increase for Legal Week's top 50 for 2007/2008 of 7.3%.

On the left you can see a chart of the changes in revenue and PEP for the "Over £100m" group mentioned above. It is rather depressing, I agree, but really what is required is a longer term understanding of both of these figures. I would like to see these measurements for as many firms as possible over a five or ten year period. This is much more likely to give useful information and to provide an insight into the health of individual firms. It can also provide a useful context for analysts to be able to comment on a single year. Is a reduction in PEP of 11% bad? I don't know. In the context of five years of over 10% growth - no, probably not. In the context of five years of reductions in PEP - probably yes.

The reduction in PEP was surely coming. A combination of tax payments for the previous year, reduced client spending, additional extraordinary expenditure to get rid of (possibly too many) staff and a lag in reductions in other expenditures made a reduction in PEP very predictable. What is interesting is in how the changes seem to affect firms with all sizes of turnover.

My point is that firms should not use a reduction in PEP in one year as a signal for further panic measures. Now is the time to speak with the partners and to explain that PEP will be cyclical; that PEP is in any case a fairly poor measurement of the firm's well being - it is far too short-term a measure; and that now is the time to look for efficiencies rather than savings. Now is the time to ensure that every process in the firm is working effectively not just cheaply. Now is also the time to work very hard at the firm's marketing and business development. The partners should be concentrating on excellence in client work, client retention and finding new clients - and not much more. Now is the time that they must (a) make sure they have world-class business support staff; that (b) they have a clear and concise strategy; and that (c) they let the experts concentrate on their areas of expertise - let the partners run the legal side of the business and let the firms executives run the business.

Does PEP matter? Yes - sadly it does. Firms seem to need to have one measure of comparison and have jumped at using PEP. I suggest a move to looking at trend data - PEP over a rolling 5 and 10 year period and revenue on the same basis. How about profit figures for individual cases and business units - I realise that these will never be published, but surely these are a more useful measurement for any firm's management.

Well done to those firm's who either managed to increase PEP or kept the reduction to a minimum - but let's not pretend that data for one year means that much. Legal week have an interesting article looking at five year trends - this is surely the way forward.

I should like to add, as a postscript, that now is probably a very good time for law firms to hiring high quality consulting advice in the areas of structural planning, efficiency, process planning, training and risk. Happily I know one or two firms who can help with that....

Mar-on Consulting

Geotrupes