Your blog is realy very interesting. http://www.g888.com

Your blog is realy very interesting. http://www.g888.com

Thank you for taking the time to Comment, Mr. Baker.   I readily agree that hourly billing is imperfect and has often been abused.  But, that is true of every billing method ever devised by any service provider.  I also agree that many alternative forms of billing can offer advantages over hourly billing in some circumstances.  See some of my prior postings:

Posting 02/17/04 Value Billing or Venal Bilking?
Posting 02/12/04 Fees and the Lawyer-Fiduciary
Posting 01/31/04 Valuable Debate on Value Billing
Posting 01/28/04 Fiduciary Duties and Contingency Fees
Posting 01/28/04 Value Billing and Lawyer Ethics

There is a tension and uncertainty with hiring any provider of a skilled service – especially, when the purchaser does not hire the provider on a fulltime basis and/or cannot readily predict the outcome or the amount of time needed to perform the service satisfactorily. 
You state things in such absolutes that it is difficult to accept your conclusions. To say that “no client buys time” does not jibe with the reality of legal practice in many situations.  It often happens that the client is buying the lawyer’s time — that is, the lawyer’s application of his or her skills for the time it takes to solve a problem (or attempt to solve it — the “result” is often totally out of the hands of the lawyer or cannot be shown to be successful except over a longrun), or up to a maximum time limit or budget.
It is hard to find a diplomatic way to respond to your statement “Any price agreed, up front and before the work is performed (this is key), is by definition a ‘fair’ price.  Even the ABA recognizes this to be the case.”   That statement is simply wrong.  Your own book acknowledges that the ABA says an agreed upon price is fair subject to market realities and the attorney’s professional obligations.  One professional obligation is to avoid charging an excessive fee.  Market realities and whether the client is fully informed and knowledgeable are other factors to be considered, as is the skill level needed, results obtained, the amount of time spent, and the inability of the lawyer to take on other work due to time constraints created by the client’s needs.   Rule 1.5 on fees, along with the entire history of enforcing the rule against unreasonable fees, makes it clear that the fairness of a fixed fee, or a fxed percentage on a contngent fee, can be judged after the service has been performed. 

Thank you for taking the time to Comment, Mr. Baker.   I readily agree that hourly billing is imperfect and has often been abused.  But, that is true of every billing method ever devised by any service provider.  I also agree that many alternative forms of billing can offer advantages over hourly billing in some circumstances.  See some of my prior postings:

Posting 02/17/04 Value Billing or Venal Bilking?
Posting 02/12/04 Fees and the Lawyer-Fiduciary
Posting 01/31/04 Valuable Debate on Value Billing
Posting 01/28/04 Fiduciary Duties and Contingency Fees
Posting 01/28/04 Value Billing and Lawyer Ethics

There is a tension and uncertainty with hiring any provider of a skilled service – especially, when the purchaser does not hire the provider on a fulltime basis and/or cannot readily predict the outcome or the amount of time needed to perform the service satisfactorily. 
You state things in such absolutes that it is difficult to accept your conclusions. To say that “no client buys time” does not jibe with the reality of legal practice in many situations.  It often happens that the client is buying the lawyer’s time — that is, the lawyer’s application of his or her skills for the time it takes to solve a problem (or attempt to solve it — the “result” is often totally out of the hands of the lawyer or cannot be shown to be successful except over a longrun), or up to a maximum time limit or budget.
It is hard to find a diplomatic way to respond to your statement “Any price agreed, up front and before the work is performed (this is key), is by definition a ‘fair’ price.  Even the ABA recognizes this to be the case.”   That statement is simply wrong.  Your own book acknowledges that the ABA says an agreed upon price is fair subject to market realities and the attorney’s professional obligations.  One professional obligation is to avoid charging an excessive fee.  Market realities and whether the client is fully informed and knowledgeable are other factors to be considered, as is the skill level needed, results obtained, the amount of time spent, and the inability of the lawyer to take on other work due to time constraints created by the client’s needs.   Rule 1.5 on fees, along with the entire history of enforcing the rule against unreasonable fees, makes it clear that the fairness of a fixed fee, or a fxed percentage on a contngent fee, can be judged after the service has been performed. 

I read with interest your comments on my book, which are not a complete understanding of my case made for Value Pricing. Any price agreed, up front and before the work is performed (this is key), is by definition a “fair” price. Even the ABA recognizes this to be the case. The problem is, lawyers don’t want to quote a price up-front because they are mired in the mentality that time equates to value. This is false. Time spent is merely efforts, and clients buy results. No client buys time, so how can we sell something clients don’t buy? I can’t make the case here, however, and suggest strongly you get hold of my books that decimate the logic for the billable hour and advocate a pricing strategy that aligns the interests of the lawyer and client. I also discuss the ethics of this in great detail, especially in Professional’s Guide to Value Pricing, 5th Edition (Aspen Publishers, Inc.).
Sincerely,
Ron Baker

I read with interest your comments on my book, which are not a complete understanding of my case made for Value Pricing. Any price agreed, up front and before the work is performed (this is key), is by definition a “fair” price. Even the ABA recognizes this to be the case. The problem is, lawyers don’t want to quote a price up-front because they are mired in the mentality that time equates to value. This is false. Time spent is merely efforts, and clients buy results. No client buys time, so how can we sell something clients don’t buy? I can’t make the case here, however, and suggest strongly you get hold of my books that decimate the logic for the billable hour and advocate a pricing strategy that aligns the interests of the lawyer and client. I also discuss the ethics of this in great detail, especially in Professional’s Guide to Value Pricing, 5th Edition (Aspen Publishers, Inc.).
Sincerely,
Ron Baker