Time Again for More Criticism of the Billable Hour
It's one thing for lawyers to criticize the billable hour amongst themselves, as Scott Turow did with the publication of his essay, "The Billable Hour Must Die," in the ABA Journal. But now, the debate over the billable hour has spilled over from lawyer publications into the mainstream press, with articles such as "The Scourge of the Billable Hour: Could Law-Firm Clients Finally Kill it Off?," that appeared online at Slate.com on January 2, 2008.
The Slate piece makes an important, albeit obvious point: Despite persistent criticism of the billable hour by academics, lawyers and bloggers, the system won't change until clients demand a change. And according to the article, that's what clients are doing now.
As the article describes, clients' desires have always driven law firm billing practices. Hourly billing gained traction in the 1950s, partly to cater to clients who wanted more transparency. But law firms also realized that they could earn more money by billing more hours -- and thus, began increasing billable hour requirements and finding ways to encourage redundancy rather than efficiency. But now, tired of subsidizing law firm gravy trains, large corporate clients are forcing firms to offer alternative billing arrangements, such as flat fees, volume discounts and banning new associates from working on matters.
From the article, here's how the legal world might look if the trend away from the billable hour continues:
The top end of the spectrum will remain largely unchanged. Companies will still pay hourly rates to hire white-shoe law firms for specialized, bet-your-company kinds of work. On the opposite end, however, clients will stop taking their rote legal work to law firms altogether. Companies already outsource relatively simple matters like document review to consulting services. And as technology improves, more programs will let companies handle their own contracts online. In the murky middle between one-of-a-kind advice and dime-a-dozen contracts, the push for alternative arrangements will prevail.
In some ways, the legal world is changing already, and moving in this direction. As we described here, one Boston law firm has banned the billable hour entirely. And as Indiana family law attorney Sam Hasler describes in this comprehensive post, many family law attorneys have adopted flat fee structures, finding that clients prefer these arrangements because they result in more predictable legal fees.
At the same time, for every step forward, there are forces that hold the profession back. Old habits die hard, suggests Stephanie West Allen at Idealawg. The lawyer brain, accustomed to grueling schedules and prone to workaholism, may resist the killing of the billable hour. Meanwhile, Barry Barnett at Blawgletter suggests that firms that can't handle this kind of complex litigation without a staff of 59 lawyers won't be offering alternative billing plans (like a contingency fee) anytime soon.
So, is 2008 the year that we'll really see client pressure on firms to offer alternative billing, as Wired GC predicts? Or, like the billable hour, is all of the continued talk of getting rid of it, simply redundant?
Posted by Carolyn Elefant on January 3, 2008 at 12:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)
Ouch -- D.C. Calls Former Lawyer and Supreme Court Litigator 'Not Indispensable'
"It's not as if one person is indispensable," said D.C. Attorney General Peter Singer to the Washington Post, explaining why his decision to fire Supreme Court litigator, Alan Morrison won't compromise the District's case before the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller. The case will address the question of whether the District's handgun ban violates the Second Amendment. Ouch! After all, if a Supreme Court advocate like Morrison, with twenty oral arguments under his belt and who played a substantial role in researching and drafting the District's 15,000 word brief due at the Court tomorrow is regarded as fungible, what hope is there for the rest of us?
As Tony Mauro reports at the Blog of the Legal Times, Morrison speculated that he was fired because he was viewed as a "loyalist" of Nickles' predecessor, Linda Singer, who resigned on December 21. Nickles did not offer any additional explanation for firing Morrison, except to say that the District had decided to take a different direction in the case. And to be fair, even without Morrison, the District's Supreme Court team still includes top talent like Tom Goldstein and Walter Dellinger, though apparently both are already booked for arguments in other cases before the Court this month and next.
What do you think? With this kind of "dream team," does the elimination of one of the players make a difference? Or will Nickles' decision to bench Morrison midway through the case compromise the District's chance of success at the High Court?
Posted by Carolyn Elefant on January 3, 2008 at 10:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
A Lawyer Sitting With the Sharks
Some lawyer stereotypes -- such as the image of the lawyer as a shark -- are so pervasive that it's easier to embrace them rather than try to erase them. And that's apparently what Bozeman, Montana family law attorney Chris Gillette decided to do, when he installed an eight ton shark tank in his office. (H/T to Lowering the Bar.) Gillette originally planned the shark tank as a joke, but then realized that it could also help create a more comfortable atmosphere for his clients, who are often dealing with stressful situations. Of course, I don't quite understand Gillette's logic; after all, when I think of a soothing environment, a seat in close proximity to a shark tank doesn't come to mind. At the same time, I suppose that a shark tank could help family law clients put their problems in perspective by making them realize that, bad as the court process may be, it's still better than being trapped in a tank with carnivorous fish.
In any event, based on this discussion at his Web site, Gillette doesn't seem shark-like at all. Among other things, Gillette's Web site explains to clients that he acts cooperatively with opposing counsel and will, if appropriate, consider compromises and negotiations even if proposed by the other side.
Posted by Carolyn Elefant on January 3, 2008 at 10:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
America's Funniest Legal Videos, Online Now
Looking for a few laughs? Well then, why settle for watching mediocre late-night TV shows that (with the exception of Letterman) remain without their writers, when you can chortle at the superior comedy of lawyers behaving hilariously at The Billable Hour's newly launched Video Venue. (H/T to Monica Bay at the Common Scold.) According to The Video Venue (TVV), the site features video clips by, for and about lawyers, law students and legal professionals, that "can and will make you laugh, in a court of law or elsewhere." The site already includes over a hundred videos on topics such as billing, ethics, work/life balance and law school.
To encourage lawyers to submit videos, TVV is running a contest, through January 31, 2008, to find the Funniest Legal Video on the Web, with a $50 gift certificate for the The Billable Hour online store as the grand prize.
Posted by Carolyn Elefant on January 3, 2008 at 10:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Rodrigo González Fernández
DIPLOMADO EN RSE DE LA ONU
www.Consultajuridicachile.blogspot.com
www.lobbyingchile.blogspot.com
www.el-observatorio-politico.blogspot.com
Renato Sánchez 3586
teléfono: 5839786
e-mail rogofe47@mi.cl
Santiago-Chile
No comments:
Post a Comment