The type of legal work performed for your clients, the nature of your client base, the competitive environment in which your firm practices and the client's perception of the value of the legal work performed will be critical factors in determining two things: Whether your firm should volunteer; or React to external pressures for
alternative billing arrangements from your clients or as the result of competitive pressures created by other firms.
The type of legal work performed for your clients, the nature of your client base, the competitive environment in which your firm practices and the client's perception of the value of the legal work performed will be critical factors in determining (a) whether your firm should volunteer or (b) react to external pressures for
alternative billing arrangements from your clients or as the result of competitive pressures created by other law firms.
The type of legal work performed for your clients, the nature of your client base, the competitive environment in which your firm practices and the client's perception of the value of the legal work performed will be critical factors in determining whether your firm should volunteer or react to external pressures for
alternative billing arrangements from your clients or as the result of competitive pressures created by other law firms.
Not exact matches
Therefore, they seek more
alternative fee
arrangements, fixed / capped costs and creative
billing arrangements from their law firms.
But now, tired of subsidizing law firm gravy trains, large corporate clients are forcing firms to offer
alternative billing arrangements, such as flat fees, volume discounts and banning new associates
from working on matters.
With counsel pursuing more and more non-traditional fee
arrangements, the percentage of Corporate, General Tax matters having
billings under some sort of
alternative fee
arrangement has risen
from 9 % in the last report to 12.5 % in this latest report.
We've written a lot about the billable hour
from various perspectives, and have considered some
alternative billing arrangements available to lawyers and clients.
For example, some firms have invested significant time and money in developing customized financial reporting producing performance metrics based on client
billing, collection, realization, and costs associated with producing work —
from task to timekeeper — then used those metrics to determine where the firm can offer more competitive
alternative fee, or non-hourly,
arrangements.
Carrying over
from the last few years is a decline in the use of
alternative fee
arrangements — 3.2 per cent said AFAs were the
billing arrangement they had with their primary law firm / external service provider, which was a slight drop
from 4.9 per cent last year and a considerable drop
from 12.7 per cent in 2015.
The query stems
from an observation of substantial profits by large U.S. firms using
alternative billing arrangements for plaintiff - side antitrust cases.
Indeed, as we said years ago in the post chronomentrophobia, «
from the perspective of the overworked associate or partner, there is nothing wrong with the billable hour fee system that is not very likely to be carried over to any
alternative billing arrangements, so long as the firm expects the shift to be made without reducing its income or profits, and the lawyer expects the same income.
Indeed, McGuireWoods last year launched an advertising campaign to publicize its
alternative billing arrangements (see archived posts
from the JD Bliss blog here and here).