Are you struggling to charge what you deserve? Raising your rates can be tricky, and right now, it might seem particularly tough or even insensitive to consider. That’s because, as we write this, our economy is in the very early stages of recovery from the coronavirus pandemic. However, not only do you deserve to be
Last week I wrote about the fictitious client letter sent to the recently retained outside law firm, wherein the general counsel sets forth his expectations. As noted in that post, the “letter” was brought to us by Bob Denney in one of his Legal Communiqués. ’s Legal Communique, wherein the law firm is admonished/warned…
This year at the Legal Tech conference the keynote address was by Jim Calloway, a law practice management guru, who serves as director of the Oklahoma Bar Association’s Management Assistance Program. The highlights of his much heralded address on the future of law practice is now a podcast that is worth listening to. It…
While one recent survey says that “reducing spending (with outside law firms) is a top priority for corporate legal departments”, another says that regional firms may be in position to gain more work over BigLaw. Both surveys were reported by Law360, the newswire for business lawyers.
Last week Robert Half Legal’s 10th Future Law…
This got my attention, because although there has been much written about the subject including on this blog, it hasn’t seemed that alternative fees were catching…
Basically, he states that the billable hour “makes no sense.” Making more money by dragging out a matter (or in his analogy, making more money by getting “bogged down a land war in Asia”) is “frankly nuts.” Pretty strong words from a firm that doesn’t really have to worry about clients questioning their bills, I wouldn’t expect.
Even though tons of folks (too many people to mention here) in blogosphere, including yours truly, have long advocated doing away with the billable hour, Chesler’s comments, one could argue, clearly takes the debate to a higher level. Not many would expect such a position from a BigLaw firm of Cravath’s stature. Now maybe the concept of alternative fees, although not new, will take on a bit more momentum.
Although there have been many different suggestions for alternative fee arrangements (see Continue Reading below for a few of my posts on the topic), I found a couple of ideas from a named partner in a 10-lawyer Philadelphia area firm worth considering. Gary Lentz of Bochetto & Lentz wrote an article published in The Legal Intelligencer and on Small Firm Business suggesting a couple of approaches that could attract new clients and enhance fee opportunities in this down economy.
The following two variations on the same theme are worth consideration by firms of all sizes:
- Multi-phased Fee Agreements
- Phase I – an initial flat fee to evaluate the case, develop strategy, negotiate and “prompt resolution” (with a potential for a bonus) and drafting complaint, if necessary;
- Phase II – a mix hourly, fixed fee and/or contingency, if necessary to file and pursue the matter in court.
- Blended Contingency Fee Agreements – an initial flat fee to cover the evaluation of the case and drafting the complaint, followed with a contingency fee based on outcome of the matter.
Take a look. They may just work for your firm, particularly with clients who are encountering their own uncertainties in the current economy.
At the Legal Marketing Association annual meeting last month in LA, the chairperson and the general counsel of the Association of Corporate Counsel, along with two other members on their panel, let law firm marketers know how they felt about the increasing rates and associated legal costs of outside counsel.
According to a post…
The billable hour has been criticized by many people in the legal industry, including me. But, from a business development standpoint, I’m not against the billable hour per se as much as I’m in favor of using alternative fees (fixed, blended rates, etc) to increase a law firm’s marketing advantage. That’s not entirely true; …
The results of a survey by Bruce MacEwen at Adam Smith, Esq. leads him to conclude that based on responses by 63% of respondents (there were only 87) “the billable hour will remain intact for all practical purposes.” The responses to the question “Will the billable hour ever lose its dominance?” are:
*Yes, but only for commodity work – 31%
*Yes, pretty much across the board – 29%
*Only for clients who absolutely positively insist – 32%
*Over my dead body – 8%
I have a slightly different slant. For years Bill Cobb of WCCI-Cobb Consulting, a consultant for more than 25 years to law firms on strategic and value-added issues, has used an interesting graph to depict the risk factor and legal expertise need based on the variables of the “volume of legal work available” (X axis) vs. “relative value added” (Y) by lawyers. What is especially interesting about the chart is that (based on ABA figures a few years back), commodity work was 60% of volume of legal work available.
If that is still the case (with technology it is likely a higher percentage today), based on Bruce’s survey results above, it can be argued that 60% of the respondents believe that hourly billing will lose its dominance for the majority of legal work available to lawyers.
Over the years, ABA surveys have indicate that legal fees only get ranked between number 5 to 7 on the lists of top concerns by clients. This fact often escapes lawyers because clients DO COMPLAIN about the cost of legal services. However, when one looks deeper, often what one uncovers is that clients are really…