Mid-Atlantic firm, 280 clients
The starting position
Mid-Atlantic regional practice, owner age 58 at partnership signing. 280 total clients, of which approximately 85 were high-earner profiles (income $300K+ or owner-operator complexity). Pre-partnership revenue: approximately $2.6M annually. Operating EBITDA: approximately 23%. Owner's stated motivation for exploring partnership: had grown the practice to a strong compliance operation, was personally interested in advisory work but lacked the operational infrastructure to deliver it well, no clear internal successor and a 7-10 year exit horizon.
The audit findings
Opportunity Engine audit identified approximately $240K of dormant year-one advisory opportunity across the high-earner client base, with strong concentration in §7702 layering for tech executives (a meaningful share of the firm's high-earner base worked at regional defense contractors with substantial RSU exposure), defined benefit planning for several physician-partnerships in the client base, and one large QSBS preservation opportunity for a founder-client approaching a liquidity event. Conversion projection: 45% of high-earner base over 18 months. Year-two revenue projection: $4.4M. Year-two EBITDA projection: 38%.
The integration
Partnership signed in Q2. Integration stages 03 through 04 ran on the standard timeline. The owner personally led the first 12 advisory conversations with hand-picked clients, which set a strong tone for staff conversion behavior. The QSBS opportunity closed favorably in month 7 of integration, producing a high-visibility outcome that accelerated internal conversions materially. Staff training was thorough; the team showed strong engagement with the methodology and the platform's tooling.
The outcomes at month 24
| Audit projection (month 24) | Actual outcome | |
|---|---|---|
| Total annual revenue | $4.4M | $4.9M |
| Advisory revenue share | $1.7M | $2.1M |
| High-earner conversion | ~38 of 85 (45%) | ~47 of 85 (55%) |
| EBITDA margin | 38% | 42% |
| Staff retention | Standard expectation | 100% retained |
What worked
Owner-led integration, period. The owner's visible commitment to advisory work, including personally leading the first cohort of conversations, was the single strongest determinant of outcome quality. The QSBS event in month 7 provided an unforeseen lift that the projection didn't include; it would be misleading to attribute the entire upside to that one event, but it materially accelerated the firm's narrative arc with both staff and clients.
What's next
The owner began advisory-track discussions with MicroTax in month 30. Acquisition under the Path D framework expected to complete in months 36-42. Owner's stated post-acquisition role: advisory board involvement with the firm for 3-5 years, gradual transition out of day-to-day client relationships beginning month 24 post-acquisition.
Pacific Northwest firm, 410 clients
The starting position
Pacific Northwest practice, two-partner structure, partners age 51 and 47 at partnership signing. 410 total clients, with approximately 130 at high-earner profile, heavy concentration in tech executives across major Seattle-area employers. Pre-partnership revenue: approximately $3.8M. EBITDA: 21%. Stated motivation: partners saw the structural ceiling on compliance economics clearly, both partners wanted to build advisory capacity but lacked the bandwidth and infrastructure to do it internally, no immediate exit horizon (15-20 year plan).
The audit findings
Opportunity Engine audit identified approximately $380K of dormant year-one advisory opportunity. Strong concentration of RSU-related opportunity given the client mix; meaningful §7702 opportunity for a subset of clients who had already maxed traditional retirement vehicles; modest cost segregation opportunity from a small number of real-estate-investing clients. Conversion projection: 42% of high-earner base over 18 months. Year-two revenue projection: $6.1M. Year-two EBITDA projection: 36%.
The integration
The integration tracked closely to the standard arc. The two-partner structure helped distribute the leadership load, one partner focused on advisory client conversations while the other maintained compliance operations during the transition period. Staff training was effective but slower than Case A; the larger team meant the training investment was bigger and the pace of internal conversion was correspondingly more gradual. The first major advisory milestone (15+ engagements signed) hit in month 8, on the audit's projected timeline.
The outcomes at month 22
| Audit projection (month 22) | Actual outcome | |
|---|---|---|
| Total annual revenue | $5.9M | $5.8M |
| Advisory revenue share | $2.2M | $2.1M |
| High-earner conversion | ~52 of 130 (40%) | ~50 of 130 (38%) |
| EBITDA margin | 35% | 34% |
| Staff retention | Standard expectation | 96% retained |
What's working
The partner-distribution model, one partner focused on advisory transition, the other holding the compliance operation steady, is the model we'd recommend to other multi-partner firms. The compliance practice didn't experience any service-quality degradation during the integration period because one partner remained fully focused on it. Advisory growth came at a measured pace but with high engagement quality and minimal disrupted-client incidents.
What's next
Both partners have indicated interest in continuing the partnership long-term rather than pursuing acquisition. The firm is currently exploring whether to deepen advisory specialization in a specific vertical (likely tech executives, given client base composition) or broaden into adjacent client segments. Either path remains supported by the partnership structure.
Sunbelt firm, 195 clients
The starting position
Sunbelt practice, single-owner structure, owner age 61 at partnership signing. 195 total clients, of which approximately 55 at high-earner profile, predominantly business-owner clients with $500K+ revenue businesses, modest equity-compensation exposure across the base. Pre-partnership revenue: approximately $1.8M. EBITDA: 24%. Stated motivation: 5-8 year exit horizon, no internal successor, exploring partnership specifically as a path to higher acquisition multiples than a regional-CPA sale would produce.
The audit findings
Opportunity Engine audit identified approximately $145K of dormant year-one advisory opportunity. The smaller absolute number reflected the firm's smaller scale; the per-client opportunity profile was actually slightly stronger than Cases A or B (business-owner clients tend to have deeper advisory needs than W-2-heavy tech-executive clients). Conversion projection: 50% of high-earner base over 18 months given the high-engagement client profile. Year-two revenue projection: $3.0M. Year-two EBITDA projection: 38%.
The integration, and what happened
Stages 01-03 ran cleanly. Stage 04 launch went smoothly through the first three months. Then, at month 8 of integration, the firm experienced a significant operational disruption: the owner's senior staff member (the next-generation leader being positioned to take on increasing client-facing advisory work) accepted an unsolicited offer from a competing firm and departed with two weeks' notice.
The departure created a structural problem. The senior staff member had been the primary contact for several of the firm's high-earner clients during the advisory transition; their departure forced reassignment of those clients, which in turn slowed the advisory conversion velocity and increased some clients' anxiety about service continuity. The owner spent months 9-14 personally managing the recovery, taking back direct relationships, working with MicroTax to bring in interim advisory support for the reassigned clients, and recruiting and training a replacement senior staff member.
By month 18, the recovery was essentially complete. By month 24, the firm had reached the audit's projected operating state, but on a 6-month delayed timeline.
The outcomes at month 24 (vs. month 24 projection and month 30 actual)
| Audit projection (month 24) | Actual at month 24 | Actual at month 30 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total annual revenue | $3.0M | $2.6M | $2.9M |
| Advisory revenue share | $1.2M | $840K | $1.1M |
| High-earner conversion | ~27 of 55 (50%) | ~18 of 55 (33%) | ~26 of 55 (47%) |
| EBITDA margin | 38% | 32% | 36% |
| Staff retention | Standard expectation | 78% retained | 82% retained |
What this case shows
The structural risk of partnership at smaller firms is staff-departure exposure. At a 410-client firm with 2 partners and 8-10 senior team members (Case B), the loss of any one team member is recoverable. At a 195-client firm with one owner-partner and 2-3 senior team members (Case C), the loss of a key team member during integration is a major disruption. The audit's projections assumed normal-attrition conditions; the unsolicited offer that produced the departure was outside the realistic baseline.
The case's positive note is the recovery. The firm did reach the projected operating state, just on a 6-month delay. By month 36 (still in process at this writing), we expect outcomes consistent with or slightly above the original audit projections, because the post-departure period included recruiting a stronger senior staff member than the firm had previously, with materially better fit for the advisory practice the firm was building.
The owner-relevant lesson: partnership doesn't insulate the firm from external events. Staff retention investments, succession planning at the senior-staff level, and operational resilience at sub-partner-firms matter independently of platform partnership decisions. The audit projections assume reasonable execution; reasonable execution requires reasonable operational stability throughout the integration period.
3 of 3
Cases reaching positive year-two outcomes
Two exceeded projections (Cases A and B). One adjusted downward from projections due to a Year 1 staff departure (Case C), but still finished year two at 31% EBITDA, comfortably above the pre-partnership baseline. The model produces a range of outcomes, not a single point estimate.
What the variation tells you
Three cases. Three different outcomes. The variation between them is what the page is really for, not for benchmarking your own potential outcomes against a specific projection, but for understanding the realistic range that partnership produces in practice.
Case A exceeded projections meaningfully. Case B tracked projections closely. Case C ran into a structural problem and recovered with a delayed timeline. All three are within the realistic range of what platform partnership can produce. The audit's projections are calibrated to median-case outcomes; the actual outcomes distribute around that median with variation driven by execution quality, external events, and the partner firm's specific operational characteristics.
If you're evaluating partnership for your own practice, the more useful framing isn't "will I match Case A's outcome?" but "which of these three cases looks most like my situation?" Owner-led integration with a strong client base and supportive client events (Case A pattern) tends toward upside outcomes. Multi-partner steady execution with a moderate client base (Case B pattern) tends toward median outcomes on schedule. Single-owner structure with limited staff depth (Case C pattern) carries higher structural risk and benefits from explicit operational planning to mitigate it.
The conversation that determines which case your firm most resembles is the conversation we'd want to have during stages 01-02 of the integration. How it works →