Summer means different things to different people.

To some, it's tennis on the lawn with strawberries and cream, while to others freezing on a beach behind a wind-breaker.

But for law firms, it means just one thing -- annual results.And while partners pat themselves on the back for another year of rising profits, legal publications are limbering up for their annual gross fees probe.Ten years ago, gross fees surveys were unheard of.

Legal Business became the first legal publication to publish turnover figures and profitability of the highest earning law firms, and others soon jumped on the bandwagon.With all this interest, law firms can play it one of two ways -- clam up or put out.

As co-operation becomes the norm, with a small minority of die-hard firms such as Linklaters & Alliance refusing even to confirm figures, more and more firms are taking the initiative, and turning their results to their advantage.So far this year, Eversheds, DLA, Wragge & Co, Irwin Mitchell, Speechly Bircham and Pannone & Partners have come clean with their annual results to head off the inevitable intrusion.'The fact is that the efforts of legal journalists have resulted in the approximate financial positions of leading firms becoming well known,' says Ronnie Fox, senior partner of Fox Williams and chairman of the Association of Partnership Practitioners.Most firms know that if they do not co-operate, speculative results will be published anyway.

Top 15 firm Ashurst Morris Crisp's profitability came under the spotlight last month, as its merger with US firm Latham & Watkins collapsed.

But the firm plans to release figures this year for the second time to prevent speculation.Ashursts' managing partner, Ian Nisse, says: 'If the general marker was that everyone was saying absolutely nothing, the credibility [of these surveys] would go through the floor.

But we don't want any inconsistencies.

Given where the market has got to, we do release figures on our average profits per partner and profits that individuals get at the top and bottom of the lockstep.

The reason that we now do this is if information is going to be published, we would want it to be correct.'The main thing for a firm like Ashursts is to put the record straight: 'It's important that people overall have a fair impression if things are going to be said about our firm.'DLA publishes for the same reason.

Its managing partner, Nigel Knowles, says: 'We do it because if we didn't, people make it up and when they make it up they inevitably get it wrong.'In May, DLA held a press conference to publicise its annual results for the third time.

Mr Knowles argues it is good public relations.

He says: 'As a firm we are open about what we are doing and we don't see any down side in telling people.'We don't get any adverse feedback at all.

We probably get some positive feedback because we are open and honest about it.

Clients are happy to instruct firms that are successful.

Success likes to be associated with success.'But there is another reason.

DLA wants to distance itself from the old Dibb Lupton Alsop, and market itself as an open firm that is happy to let the world in on its financial secrets.

'We are a very different firm to the firm that people used to know and that perception in the market place still lags behind.'While most agree that the surveys give some idea of how firms are performing in relation to each other, the accuracy of the results can be patchy.

Richard Turnor, vice-chairman of the Association of Partnership Practitioners and a partner at Allen & Overy, says: 'They tend to be not far out, but it is speculation.'The problem is, there is no uniform approach.

Firms account differently for work in progress and may have differing policies on paying interest on capital and making payouts to retired partners.

A firm might have spent a bumper amount on infrastructure such as new offices and IT, which could be spread over a number of years, or simply paid in one go.Any firm that pre-empts the surveys and releases results as a news story, will have the opportunity to justify issues like this to potential recruits and clients.'You have got to balance [our profit level] with the fact that we are investing a lot,' s ays Mr Knowles.City firm Kennedys' turnover was hit this year by the arrival of new partners from Edward Lewis, and the expense of opening a Hong Kong office.

But senior partner Nick Thomas says the firm can still report an upturn in profitability, with gross fees up to £21 million from £19 million.

The firm's 23 equity partners earned between £130,000 and £240,000 -- an average of £163,000.He sums it up: 'It's better than a poke in the eye with a burnt stick.

It's not grotesque fat cattery, but we're quietly pleased.'Meanwhile, an Ashursts partner looks likely to be doing substantially better this with an average profit of £420,000 last year, so you would think the firm would have cause to celebrate.

But as Ashursts does not borrow money to finance investments, instead drawing money from its working capital, its profits may not appear as high as at other top City firms.

Or in other professions.

Mr Fox points out: 'The profit shares of the partners are very different than in industry.

The big difference is that partners have to provide for their own pensions.'Profits per partner figures can be the most controversial.

Peter Charlton, London managing partner of Clifford Chance, argues that the length of the career ladder makes a difference to the analysis of figures.

Even within the magic circle there are differences.

A Clifford Chance lawyer is likely to make equity after eight years -- two years before he or she would at Freshfields.

But there can be a big difference between earnings at the top and bottom of equity that may not be reflected in the comparison.Mr Charlton says: 'You can't compare Ford with Chrysler and say Ford is better than Daimler Chrysler.' He gives the example of Slaughter and May -- famous for its profitability, but equally for its low investment in foreign offices.

Real comparisons, Mr Charlton insists, must be based on performance of offices in the same market.So if there is no easy way to compare performance with any degree of accuracy, why do it? The partners are the only ones that count, and they already know how profitable they are.

The truth is there is not a great difference between the American Lawyer magazine's AmLaw 100 survey and men's magazine FHM's top 100 sexiest women surveys or The Sunday Times' rich list.

Obviously, the FHM survey is more subjective, but the principle is the same -- people like to read about who is on top in their field of interest.Mr Turnor says: 'It's interesting to compare your firm with others.

It gives you a clue as to how well you are doing.' And Mr Charlton agrees that lawyers want to know the figures: 'There is interest in what the partners in law firms earn, but it's just a snapshot; it's more interesting to look at how the firms are developing their businesses to meet the challenges of the future.

Partner earnings in the big law firms are relatively modest compared to what many investment bankers of equivalent experience earn.'James Retallack, senior partner of Birmingham-based Edge Ellison, agrees that the surveys are targeted more at lawyers than clients: 'I don't think clients are that interested in what the turnover or profit is.

Clients are more interested in the size of your insurance policy.'Mr Nisse says he is unsure about the value of publication, and suspects that the truth is: 'People are just being nosy.'Mr Fox insists a partnership's accounts are a private matter: 'If people are going to practise in the traditional way, as unlimited liability partnerships, they shouldn't have to publish accounts.

It seems to me that there are no re ally good reasons.

Who needs to know?'Mr Turnor agrees: 'With partnerships, I'm not sure whether the creditors have any business to know.

I'm not sure its necessary.

It's irrelevant to the creditors in a partnership context.'But if firms want to limit their liability, and apply to become a limited liability partnership (LLP) under legislation currently going through Parliament, they will be forced to reveal their figures.

It will no longer be between the law firm, the taxman and the media; the creditors will also have an interest in financial transparency.The LLP Bill imposes more stringent accounting requirements on LLPs than attach to traditional partnerships, or to LLPs in the US.

Mr Fox says most US states make it very simple to change into LLPs and do not require the publication of accounts.

But the situation is different this side of the pond: 'It's become the price to become an LLP.'Both Mr Fox and Mr Turnor agree that the requirement to publish accounts in the UK will give US firms a competitive advantage.

US law firms will be able to use the information, while their own books will remain firmly closed to the prying eyes of UK law firms.On the other hand, keeping accounts is a matter of good housekeeping.

Mr Turnor says: 'It's what every company faces and a well-run law firm will produce accounts.'He says that lawyers are concerned that the LLP Bill goes too far in requiring members to publish their home addresses and give details of average profits per partner.

But he adds: 'I think it's entirely fair that you should make relevant information public.'Nevertheless, most firms will not be put off becoming LLPs for this reason alone.

Mr Nisse says: 'The disclosure wouldn't sway our judgement either way.

The liability part is the essential reason why people think about it.

If the market moves that way, I think we would.'And some say LLP status does not go far enough.

'Personally, I prefer pure incorporation rather than this halfway house,' says Mr Retallack.It is a moot point.

In the meantime, the decision whether to go public remains a matter for the partners themselves, while the trend for opening the books to media scrutiny continues.