Firms failing on billing practices as 72% of partners note room for improvement
Large commercial law firms need to improve both the way they price work and bill clients, according to new research.
September 06, 2012 at 07:00 PM
4 minute read
Hourly rates still favoured by firms, but partners predict this dominance will shrink. Alex Newman reports
Large commercial law firms need to improve both the way they price work and bill clients, according to new research.
Legal Week's latest Big Question survey found 72% of respondents said law firms could be better at accurately and fairly pricing work and billing clients, with a quarter of these stating firms were either 'terrible' or that they 'should be much better'. Only 28% of respondents said large law firms were already using sophisticated pricing and billing methods.
In defence of the findings, partners argued that the complexity of large commercial deals can make it difficult to accurately price work in advance, particularly given the current volatility in the global markets, which can make even a seemingly straightforward deal more complex.
Ashurst banking partner Mark Vickers admitted: "Even well-intentioned cost estimates can become wide of the mark. From the client's perspective, a deal never seems as straightforward as when the law firm is first instructed.
"From the lawyer's perspective, experience teaches you that transactions only ever get more difficult, never easier. The real skill of the lawyer is to bridge the gap while maintaining an acceptable level of profitability."
Despite the need for improvements in predicting costs upfront, 41% of those who responded to the survey said major law firms were largely trustworthy and transparent in their billing practices, with only 6% saying firms were falling far short of acceptable standards.
The majority (54%) said trustworthiness across the industry as a whole was a mixed bag. Few respondents had doubts about their own firms, with 92% stating their own firms' practices were either 'very' or 'considerably' trustworthy.
Despite growing pressure from clients – particularly banks – for alternative billing methods, the survey confirmed commercial law firms' reluctance to move away from the billable hour, with more than two-thirds (67%) of those taking part saying time-based billing either 'totally or largely' dominates the market.
While firms may be committed to hourly rates, partners expect this to change in the future, particularly as clients come under more pressure to cut legal spend. Just more than half of respondents (51%) expect time-based billing to become less important in the long-term future, and a further 13% predict that it will either largely fade away or become totally obsolete.
Slaughter and May senior partner Chris Saul commented: "Fee pressure remains significant – wholly understandable given the challenging business climate. While hourly billing remains a touchstone for many, clients are very focused on value for money.
"This means that law firms need to redouble their efforts to craft imaginative alternative billing proposals and to articulate the value which they can add and the way in which their 'product' is differentiated from that offered by other firms."
Vickers added: "The banks are at the forefront of change to billing practices and procedures. All the major banks strongly believe that the concept of time-based billing is outdated – it has become more of a measure of inefficiency rather than a determinant of value."
In contrast, Jeremy Cape, a tax partner at SNR Denton in London, noted that 36% of respondents were committed to hourly rates. He said: "I'm not entirely convinced by the claims that firms will move away from time-based billing. Many clients who ask for innovative billing structures often ask for or return to the hourly rate."
The survey also questioned partners about how efficient clients were at ensuring advisers were reasonable, proportionate and transparent in billing practices.
Only 28% of partners said clients were effective at ensuring advisers were delivering fairly and transparently on fee structures and billing, with a further 50% saying clients' efficacy was mixed.
More than 20% said clients were not very effective at all at ensuring advisers were reasonable and transparent.
Partners on billing
72% argue law firms need to get better at accurately pricing work and billing clients
67% state that time-based billing still dominates the market
64% believe time-based billing will become less important over time in preference of alternative structures
6% state that major law firms are not trustworthy when it comes to billing practices
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 All'Almost Impossible'?: Squire Challenge to Sanctions Spotlights Difficulty of Getting Off Administration's List
4 minute read'Never Been More Dynamic': US Law Firm Leaders Reflect on 2024 and Expectations Next Year
7 minute readTrending Stories
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