Has the Billable Hour Taken Another Hit?
A month ago I reported on Scott Turow's article, the "Billable Hour Must Die." Well, apparently, the New York Times now agrees. In "The Billable Hour Giving Ground at Law Firms," Jonathan Glater reports how the tough economic times are creating a shift away from the old standby billable hour. Examples given of alternative fee arrangements include:
- flat fees for business transactions,
- success fees for positive results,
- flat fees for mortgage closings,
- contingency fees,
- monthly retainers for litigation clients, and even
- fixed fees for each stage of a particular piece of litigation.
The discussion is certainly a healthy one, particularly for attorneys who may be trying to compete for clients by creating a real difference between them and their competitors. I do not believe the billable hour will go by way of the dinosaurs, but perhaps we will see a changing competitive landscape, where firms may be forced to alter their way of thinking in order to compete in the marketplace.
Have you proposed any alternative billing arrangements recently?
Scott Turow, famous novelist and one-time full time lawyer, wrote an article for the American Bar Journal, "The Billable Hour Must Die." Catchy title. Mr. Turow asks the burning question, if associates were required to bill 1,750 to 1,800 hours in 1986, but are now being pressured to bill 2,000 to 2,200 hours, "how can anyone balance these hours against other aspects of life?"