Not exact matches
Generally we focus our attention on the mechanics of
common structures, such as volume based discounting, contingency
arrangements, flat
fee billing, success
fees or secondments.
While flat
fee and other non-hourly
arrangements have been commonplace in cut - and - dried legal areas like tax and estate planning, they're becoming more
common across the practice areas of «Main Street» firms and attorneys.
This is called a «contingency
fee»
arrangement and is
common among attorneys who handle injury cases.
Typically New Law offers flexible
fee arrangements (flat
fees are
common) or charge a much lower hourly rates due to lower overheads.
When I talk with people in the legal marketplace about alternative
fee arrangements, I often hear two
common objections.
Corporate clients often no longer authorize «carte blanche» legal expenditure, alternative
fee arrangements are more
common, and clients are continually questioning where they can save on legal expenses using competitive tendering and paneling.
At heart, though, all
arrangements have one thing in
common: they need internal controls to ensure
fees and costs are properly attributed to the appropriate client.
It used to be that alternative or «appropriate»
fee arrangements were the
common subject matter of in - house counsel conference seminars, but over the last few years the mechanics around the various AFAs out there have given way, it seems, to a more hefty discussion on more thought - out budgets and project management.
Flat -
fee arrangements are becoming more
common with law practices, but smart attorneys avoid verbal flat -
fee agreements, which almost always lead to confusion and disappointment.