Case Study — Halford & Greene LLP

Module 4, Unit 1 | Finance and Accounting case study

By the end of this case, you will be able to:

• Identify the real business problem beneath competing stakeholder priorities
• Map the current workflow and mark where an AI or automation proposal might responsibly intervene
• Analyse likely human impact, including who may benefit, who may be negatively affected and who needs to be consulted
• Prepare a proposal, workflow diagram and leadership presentation without building a working technical solution

Scenario snapshot. A Bristol-based accountancy practice growing through acquisition. 1,400 SME clients across 17 different accounting systems, and a partner team trying to shift fee mix from compliance to advisory.

Back to the five scenarios

Your Brief

You have been asked to advise leadership on whether and how AI or automation should be used in this organisation. Your recommendation should be specific enough to act on, but restrained enough to be credible.

You are not expected to build a working solution. Use the case to prepare a one-page Opportunity Brief, a workflow diagram or process map, and a 7–10 minute presentation followed by approximately 10 minutes of Q&A.

Organisation Snapshot

Halford & Greene is an accountancy practice headquartered in Bristol with four offices across the South West (Bristol, Bath, Exeter, Plymouth). It has 110 staff, including 8 partners. The firm serves around 1,400 SME clients with turnover between £200k and £15m, plus 600 personal tax clients. Service lines: bookkeeping, statutory accounts, tax, payroll, and growing advisory practice. The Exeter office was acquired six months ago when a smaller local practice's senior partners retired; integration is ongoing.

Business Context

The firm is in the awkward middle of the UK accountancy market — too big to be informal, too small to be a major regional. Talent is the biggest headache: newly qualified ACAs increasingly move to industry within 18 months of qualifying. HMRC's Making Tax Digital programme is expanding (Income Tax Self Assessment lands in scope from April 2026), which means more frequent client interactions, not fewer. Partners are trying to shift fee mix from compliance toward advisory but the bookkeeping team is overwhelmed and most senior staff time is consumed by client chasing.

Process A — Monthly client document chase

Each month, bookkeepers chase their portfolio of clients for the supporting documents needed to do the books: bank statements, sales invoices, expense receipts, mileage logs, employee timesheets. Clients submit variously through email, WhatsApp photo, paper drop-in, Hubdoc, Dext, and 'I'll bring it next time I'm in.' Around 100 of the 1,400 clients reliably submit on time; the rest require chasing.

Pain points

• Bookkeepers estimate 25–30% of their time is spent chasing rather than processing.
• Around 18% of monthly records arrive after the bookkeeper's target deadline.
• Quality of submissions varies wildly — some clients send a curated PDF, some send a phone photo of a crumpled receipt.
• Several clients have moved to a competitor citing 'feeling nagged.'

Process B — New client onboarding (KYC and engagement)

When a prospective client is signed, the compliance team must complete client due diligence: collect proof of ID, proof of address and source of funds documentation; run PEP and sanctions checks via SmartSearch; draft an engagement letter in Word; obtain partner approval; and set up the client in IRIS (the practice management system).

Pain points

• Average end-to-end onboarding: 9 working days; partners want 2.
• Engagement letters are drafted from templates inconsistently — partners frequently re-edit them.
• Compliance team is one over-stretched person plus an apprentice.
• Acquired Exeter clients are still being re-onboarded six months after acquisition because their original records don't meet H&G's current AML standard.

Voices Around the Table

These voices are evidence. They do not all agree, and that disagreement is part of the case.

Managing Partner (lead sponsor): "I need to grow our advisory practice. I cannot do that if my senior people are stuck chasing receipts."

Compliance Partner: "I am keen on efficiency. I am not keen on ending up in front of an ICAEW disciplinary panel because we got clever with client data."

Head of Bookkeeping: "Honestly? I want anything that means my team are not crying on a Wednesday. The chase is killing morale."

IT Manager (one-person team): "I am running four office moves, the IRIS upgrade, and the Exeter integration. Please do not add another tool to my queue this year."

Recently-promoted Manager at acquired Exeter office: "We just got merged. Now you want to change every system again? People here are exhausted."

Concerned junior on the Bristol team: "I am not anti-AI. I am anti-us using it without telling clients we're using it on their data."

Proposals Already on the Table

Before your team was brought in, others in the organisation had already proposed ideas. Some may be useful. Some may be distractions. Evaluate them without getting captured by the loudest pitch.

Practical Realities You Should Know

Across the 1,400 clients, around 17 different accounting systems are in use: Xero (around 600 clients), QuickBooks, Sage 50, Sage Business Cloud, FreeAgent, Pandle, Excel-only, paper-only, plus a long tail. The newly acquired Exeter office uses a bespoke system from 1998 with no API. Chart-of-accounts conventions vary between clients. The IT manager has not had the capacity to audit which clients sit where or to map the differences.

Constraints

• Year 1 budget for AI and automation tooling: £45,000
• ICAEW professional conduct and AI guidance must be honoured
• GDPR plus client confidentiality plus AML record-keeping rules
• Some clients have AI-use prohibitions in their letters of engagement
• Professional indemnity insurance review pending in Q3
• Partners are protective of their chargeable-hours targets

Your Team Task

• Define the real business problem in measurable terms.
• Map the current workflow and mark where your proposal would intervene.
• Decide whether AI or automation is viable, and whether a lower-tech process change should come first.
• Explain likely human impact: who benefits, who may be negatively affected, and what support or consultation is needed.
• Name the risks, data limits, ethical concerns and governance requirements.
• Prepare your one-page brief, workflow diagram and 7–10 minute presentation.

Remember: This is a proposal exercise. You do not need to build a chatbot, workflow automation, dashboard, wireframe or prototype. A clear workflow diagram is enough if it helps the leadership panel understand your recommendation.

KSB evidence focus

• K22: Collaborative working principles to explore AI and automation solutions and implement prototypes, pilots or proof of concepts.
• S22: Present and communicate information including the translation of technical concepts into accessible materials to support clear dialogue with stakeholders.
• S23: Work with others to achieve agreed outcomes or outputs. Provide evidence-based analysis and insight to leaders on the likely human impacts of automation projects.
• S3: Undertake analysis to identify if automation is viable.
• S15: Make evidence-based suggestions to support governance.