The death of hourly billing could lead to happier lawyers
Hourly billing as the predominant model for buying legal services may finally be on its deathbed.
December 15, 2011 at 04:00 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The 2011 Futures Conference was held recently at the Illinois Institute of Technology Chicago-Kent College of Law, so I start by thanking Dean Harold Krent and his staff for letting me audit this very practical discussion among in-house counsel, law firms and consultants. This was a dynamic conference that hit on the major changes in how legal work is getting done, ranging from disruptive technology innovation to project management discipline to the use of alternative service providers.
I will focus on what I believe is the essential take away message from this conference, and by far the most relevant to anyone who practices law for a living: Hourly billing as the predominant model for buying legal services may finally be on its deathbed.
The client may be Pfizer, featured at the conference for its use of an Alliance network of “BigLaw” firms that are retained on a fixed fee basis. The client may be a next door neighbor paying $99 to use software from Legal Zoom to compose a will. Whether a matter is complex or simple, litigation or transactional, clients are embracing value billing models that offer price certainty.
What are the ramifications of value billing for legal careers? I believe compensation, job satisfaction and performance metrics will all change significantly.
For attorneys at law firms, the change in performance metrics will be dramatic. Associate bonuses will no longer be tied to hours billed. Partner compensation will align with net profitability figures, not gross revenue totals. That's significant, but it's just math. The most dramatic impact will relate to job satisfaction. I spoke with an outside attorney from Pfizer's Alliance network, and she describes the non-hourly orientation as life changing.
Think about what hourly billing does for one's mindset. The treadmill of chasing hours never stops, justifying hours becomes a defensive exercise and the lifestyle of tracking hours causes a tremendous amount of stress. Removing the almighty hour as a business objective frees a good lawyer. Focusing on results and net profitability leads smart people to engage in behavior that is efficient, creative and at times even experimental. All of a sudden, daily work life in a law firm becomes less of a grind. I really believe that value billing offers a structure that can make life in a law firm more pleasant and ultimately more rewarding. We may even hear the word “fun” used on occasion by law firm attorneys when describing their jobs.
If I am right, and value billing models result in happier lives within law firms, then it logically follows that fewer law firm attorneys will run toward the exits. We all know that most attorneys who move in-house do so for reasons other than compensation.
In the short term (maybe another 10 years), law departments can hire top notch talent from law firms that struggle with the transition to non-hourly models. And the sad but very real oversupply of JDs generally will allow companies to pick from the best among unemployed attorneys. Long-term, however, successful value billing law firms should stabilize around service teams in a way that we have not seen historically. Turnover percentages will shrink dramatically. And the unemployed ranks will get down to folks who lack the training or pedigree that companies want to hire.
Likely ramifications for inside counsel include glass half-full and half-empty outcomes. The impact of a non-hourly future on in-house compensation should be positive. Law departments will compete for candidates who understand how to create and manage value billing relationships. And when law firms stabilize around service teams with lower turnover, companies will face lateral recruiting challenges that should drive salaries up.
The potential glass half-empty ramification would be a reversal of the current march toward taking more work in-house. When enough quality law firms feature lower cost value billing models, then outsourcing more daily legal tasks may look attractive. I think we are many years away from facing a tipping point in that direction, but it's certainly worth considering when looking into the crystal ball.
Please come back next month for my take on law department hiring in 2012. Thank you for reading my column, and please enjoy a very happy holiday season.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWhite Castle GC Becomes Chain's First President From Outside Family
Beyond the Title: Developing a Personal Brand as General Counsel
Trending Stories
- 1NY Top Court to Decide Whether County Governments Owe Special Duty to Foster Care Placements
- 2Tesla, Musk Appeal Chancery Compensation Case to Delaware Supreme Court
- 3Some New Twists and Old Tricks for an Ethical New Year
- 4TikTok Hit With California Class Action for Allegedly Mining Children's Data Without Parental Consent
- 5New York Latest to Adopt NextGen Bar Exam
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250