Alternative Fee Arrangements Vary in Effectiveness, Experts Say
Companies should tailor billing arrangements.
March 31, 2010 at 08:00 PM
5 minute read
To read the full technology story on AFAs software, click here.
–
Alternative fee arrangements (AFAs) should be matched to the type of work the outside law firm is handling, according to experts. They also point out that simply implementing an AFA does not guarantee costs will go down.
John Weber, general manager of CT TyMetrix, a Web-based application service provider, says his company has conducted more than 100 client interviews to identify the most commonly used alternate fee arrangements. He cites research on effectiveness from the General Counsel Roundtable: “The most widely-used AFA, the volume discount, is not particularly effective in reducing cost,” Weber says. In fact, Rees Morrison, president of Rees Morrison Associates, argues that the volume discount is not really an AFA at all.
Experts say general counsel should consider flat fees, and add an incentive for efficiency.
“AFAs that use flat fees and performance-based bonuses are most effective at reducing cost and improving satisfaction but are currently underused,” Weber says.
On the other hand, Weber cautions against blended rates, in which the law firm charges the same hourly rate for every hour billed, regardless of whether the work was done by a high hourly rate partner or a low hourly rate associate.
Weber calls the blended rate arrangement “arguably the least effective AFA in history … because the law firm's incentive is to push the work down to the lowest-rate biller, who inevitably will be a junior associate with incentives to run up the number of hours on a given matter.”
Mark Poag, senior vice president and general counsel of DataCert, a legal operations management company, also favors AFAs based on incentives for many kinds of legal work.
“We always suggest to our clients that they utilize incentive-based alternate fee arrangements, which benefit both the law firms and the corporate clients so that everybody is pulling in the same direction and has the same incentive [to achieve] a positive outcome in the most efficient manner,” he says.
For more commodity type legal work, Poag has a different advice.
“If clients ask us, we always advise that for patent prosecutions, trademark filings, employment litigation, matters that tend to be repetitive, go with a flat fee.”
To read the full technology story on AFAs software, click here.
–
Alternative fee arrangements (AFAs) should be matched to the type of work the outside law firm is handling, according to experts. They also point out that simply implementing an AFA does not guarantee costs will go down.
John Weber, general manager of CT TyMetrix, a Web-based application service provider, says his company has conducted more than 100 client interviews to identify the most commonly used alternate fee arrangements. He cites research on effectiveness from the General Counsel Roundtable: “The most widely-used AFA, the volume discount, is not particularly effective in reducing cost,” Weber says. In fact, Rees Morrison, president of Rees Morrison Associates, argues that the volume discount is not really an AFA at all.
Experts say general counsel should consider flat fees, and add an incentive for efficiency.
“AFAs that use flat fees and performance-based bonuses are most effective at reducing cost and improving satisfaction but are currently underused,” Weber says.
On the other hand, Weber cautions against blended rates, in which the law firm charges the same hourly rate for every hour billed, regardless of whether the work was done by a high hourly rate partner or a low hourly rate associate.
Weber calls the blended rate arrangement “arguably the least effective AFA in history … because the law firm's incentive is to push the work down to the lowest-rate biller, who inevitably will be a junior associate with incentives to run up the number of hours on a given matter.”
Mark Poag, senior vice president and general counsel of DataCert, a legal operations management company, also favors AFAs based on incentives for many kinds of legal work.
“We always suggest to our clients that they utilize incentive-based alternate fee arrangements, which benefit both the law firms and the corporate clients so that everybody is pulling in the same direction and has the same incentive [to achieve] a positive outcome in the most efficient manner,” he says.
For more commodity type legal work, Poag has a different advice.
“If clients ask us, we always advise that for patent prosecutions, trademark filings, employment litigation, matters that tend to be repetitive, go with a flat fee.”
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
© 2024 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 AllGC Conference Takeaways: Picking AI Vendors 'a Bit of a Crap Shoot,' Beware of Internal Investigation 'Scope Creep'
8 minute readWhy ACLU's New Legal Director Says It's a 'Good Time to Take the Reins'
'Utterly Bewildering': GCs Struggle to Grasp Scattershot Nature of Law Firm Rate Hikes
Trending Stories
- 1The Pusillanimous Press
- 2Contract Lifecycle Management Company ContractPodAi Unveils Leah Drive
- 3'Great News' for Businesses? Judge Halts Transparency Mandate
- 4Consilio Announces ‘Native AI Review,’ Expanding Its Gen AI E-Discovery Offerings
- 5Federal Judge Hits US With $227,000 Sanction for Discovery Misconduct
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