FRS102 revenue recognition: What professional services firms need to know

Following its 2024 periodic review, the Financial Reporting Council has introduced a new revenue recognition model within FRS 102, effective for accounting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2026.  

For firms in the professional services sector, where revenue often spans complex engagements, variable fees and longterm projects, these revisions could have a significant impact. 

This article breaks down what’s changing, why it matters and what firms should be doing now. 

A more structured model for service based revenue

At the centre of the reform is a new five step model for revenue recognition, drawn from IFRS 15 and introduced into the revised Section 23. It requires firms to analyse contracts much more carefully and in much more detail, and to recognise revenue only as specific performance obligations are met. 

For many professional services engagements, this means moving away from broad interpretations of completed work, and toward a clearer, more transparent assessment of what value has been delivered to the client – and when. 

In practice, the very first step is for firms to rethink: 

• does the firm act as a principal or an agent as defined by the revised standard; 
• how engagements are defined; 
• what distinct services (performance obligations) are being promised; and 
• how progress toward fulfilling those services is measured.

Why this matters for professional services firms

Professional services engagements are seldom simple or standardised. They include multiphase projects, blended scopes, variable pricing and long term relationships. The revised standard brings these complexities into sharper focus.

1. Engagement letters will come under the microscope

A typical engagement, whether a dispute resolution case, due diligence assignment or major consulting project, often includes multiple phases.  

Under the new model, firms must identify which elements of a contract represent distinct performance obligations and whether those services should be recognised at a point in time or over time. 

This may require: 

• clearer scoping; 
• more explicit rights to payment for work performed; and 
• closer alignment between engagement terms and practice management systems. 

This could mean rethinking how engagements are structured, described and priced. 

Informal instructions or legacy templates that lack clarity will become far harder to justify from an accounting perspective.

2. Systems and data quality will become critical

Time recording, project tracking and billing systems must align so firms can track: 

• contract assets and liabilities (replacing traditional WIP accounts on balance sheets); 
• progress against performance obligations; and 
• the allocation of transaction prices. 

Disclosures under the revised standard also require more detailed analysis than many firms currently produce.

3. Success based and contingent fee arrangements create more judgement and estimation 

Performance based arrangements (as are common in litigation, corporate finance, restructuring and deal advisory) are treated as variable consideration. The expected revenues must be estimated upfront and recognised only to the extent it is “highly probable” they will not reverse later. 

This brings increased judgement, more documentation and potentially more volatility in reported profits; particularly for firms with a material pipeline of success-based work. 

 4. Overtime recognition isn’t automatic anymore 

To recognise revenue as work progresses, firms must demonstrate an enforceable right to payment for work completed to date.  

Engagement letters must include sufficiently clear wording, with respect to the right to fees for work completed to date, to meet this requirement. Otherwise, revenue may shift from overtime to point in time, creating year on year fluctuations.

5. Retainers and ongoing support must be revaluated 

Retainers will only qualify for over-time revenue recognition where the firm provides a genuine stand ready service. If the arrangement includes defined deliverables, revenue must be allocated and recognised as those services are performed.

6. Partner profits and tax positions may shift 

Even though the underlying economics of an engagement don’t change, timing differences in revenue recognition may affect profit; leading to changes in profit distribution and sharing arrangements.

In summary, the revisions to FRS 102 represent far more than a technical accounting update. They mark a shift toward greater transparency, discipline and commercial clarity across the professional services sector.

Firms that take proactive steps to tighten engagement terms, refine pricing models, upgrade systems and educate teams will be best placed to navigate the change with confidence. With the revised LLP SORP arriving at the same time, there is a clear opportunity for firms to modernise their financial foundations and enter the next reporting cycle on the front foot.

If you would like to discuss how the revised FRS 102 and LLP SORP could impact your firm’s financial reporting, pricing models or engagement terms, our team would be happy to help.