Partner chargeout rates are too low - discuss
Should clients get used to paying more for a partner's time? It seems a bizarre idea in this market, but it sprung to mind recently while taking one of my periodic online bashings from readers angry that I encouraged their employing law firms to freeze salaries. The background is this: clients quite often resent the salaries paid to assistants, generally for two reasons. Firstly, during booms they have seen assistant salaries rise sharply at the same time as their own bills have risen, so they think they're footing the bill. Secondly, they reckon they are paying a lot of money for relatively inexperienced novices.
June 03, 2009 at 08:03 PM
3 minute read
Should clients get used to paying more for a partner's time? It seems a bizarre idea in this market, but it sprung to mind recently while taking one of my periodic online bashings from readers angry that I encouraged their employing law firms to freeze salaries. The background is this: clients quite often resent the salaries paid to assistants, generally for two reasons. Firstly, during booms they have seen assistant salaries rise sharply at the same time as their own bills have risen, so they think they're footing the bill. Secondly, they reckon they are paying a lot of money for relatively inexperienced novices.
But is that logical? After all, partner remuneration also soared during those boom times and it is obviously a major component of the rates law firms charge. Clients do sometimes resent partner earnings as well, but the issue is less pressing to them because this cost isn't directly reflected in what they are paying. To put it another way - take the example of a high-end City law firm. You pay your junior associates around £60,000 a year basic, but you expect them to bill at least three times that sum on the basis of an hourly chargeout rate of £150-£180. An equity partner at the same firm would, on average, be earning more than 10 times that salary, but the chargeout rate is in the region of £500-£600. That's only three to four times the level of the rookie.
You could argue that law firms are subsiding partners through high rates for junior associates. Why not charge out the associate at £100-£120 an hour and the partner at £1,000? That way the bill would more accurately reflect the business cost of the partner and the value of their experience and honed judgement. Leverage means the client shouldn't pay more, but resources should be better allocated. Law firms always say partners are adding value – well, why not charge for it? Likewise, clients, instead of trying to get subsided partner time, might request a more considered use of resources deciding that, actually, their matter is fine with a junior or mid-level lawyer, if the saving is that significant.
It should also, in theory, encourage value-based billing as there would be less incentive to clock up endless hours. It might also even ease the in-built tension between partners and associates with regard to their relative value to the business (on second thoughts, I don't think anything can achieve that). There are probably a dozen good reasons why it wouldn't work, but at the moment they are eluding me. Maybe readers have a view.
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 AllLatham's magic circle strikes, pay rises and EY's legal takeover: the best of Legal Week over the last few weeks
3 minute readJob losses, soaring partner profits and Freshfields exits - the best of Legal Week over the past two weeks
3 minute readMagic circle PEP hikes, the associate pay conundrum and more #MeToo - the best of Legal Week last week
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Ben Brafman Defending Celebrity Rabbi in Lawsuit by Miami Hotel
- 2People in the News—Dec. 23, 2024—Barley Snyder, Marshall Dennehey
- 3How I Made Office Managing Partner: 'Be a Lawyer First, Foremost and Always,' Says Matthew McLaughlin of Venable
- 4Bar Report - Dec. 23
- 5Recent Decisions Regarding the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
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