Lawyers Lining Up Against The Billable Hour
Approximately two years ago and after much thought, I decided to stop handling family law cases on ah "hourly" basis and to instead handle them on a fixed fee basis. It was probably the best thing I've ever done for my practice. My clients love the many benefits of this fee method, such as the certainty of knowing the total cost of their case before it begins, and my quality of life has improved because I do not have to track every minute of every work day. I am not the only proponent of fixed fee billing in domestic cases, as you can see from the following article published at the Pennsylvania Family Law Blog:
It has long been my belief that the billable hour system, by which many attorneys charge their clients and earn their livings ( and as I do, too for some matters, by way of disclosure) creates an inherent tension between the attorney’s interests and those of the client. If the attorney is being paid by the hour, doesn’t he or she benefit from taking as much time as possible, or at least as much as the client will be willing to pay for, in completing a task? Of what possible benefit is this to the client? This is a primary reason that I have started to use alternative fee arrangements, such as flat fees, staged fees and success based fess and the like, for more matters, with the goal ultimately of using such arrangements in all cases. It is my view that legal fees, like fees for any other service, should be based on value added. Even some in biglaw are now seeing the light. In an article in the August 2007 issue of the ABA Journal, best selling author and Chicago litigator Scott Turow fairly well lays bare the flaws in the billable hour system. Whether Turow’s large law firm colleagues follow his lead or not, however, I intend to continue to pursue a full transition to alternative fees. My clients deserve nothing less.
Source: "Burying the Billable Hour" by Mark E. Jakubik, published at his Pennsylvania Family Law Blog,
It has long been my belief that the billable hour system, by which many attorneys charge their clients and earn their livings ( and as I do, too for some matters, by way of disclosure) creates an inherent tension between the attorney’s interests and those of the client. If the attorney is being paid by the hour, doesn’t he or she benefit from taking as much time as possible, or at least as much as the client will be willing to pay for, in completing a task? Of what possible benefit is this to the client? This is a primary reason that I have started to use alternative fee arrangements, such as flat fees, staged fees and success based fess and the like, for more matters, with the goal ultimately of using such arrangements in all cases. It is my view that legal fees, like fees for any other service, should be based on value added. Even some in biglaw are now seeing the light. In an article in the August 2007 issue of the ABA Journal, best selling author and Chicago litigator Scott Turow fairly well lays bare the flaws in the billable hour system. Whether Turow’s large law firm colleagues follow his lead or not, however, I intend to continue to pursue a full transition to alternative fees. My clients deserve nothing less.
Source: "Burying the Billable Hour" by Mark E. Jakubik, published at his Pennsylvania Family Law Blog,
