I agree with most of what you say about value billing, David, but this sentence has me scratching my head: “It’s also why a lot of probate courts have questioned or put a dollar limit on probate fees based on the overall value of the estate.”

-Which specific probate courts are you talking about? It’s my understanding that California limits fees (by statute) to a percentage of the estate. I know of no other jurisdiction that does so (although I don’t pay much attention to states other than Illinois, where I practice).

-Linking fees to the value of an estate is a really bad idea, for the reasons indicated in the post I’ve cited above.

-Isn’t it fair to say that, in setting statutory fees based on value of an estate, a court (or legislature) is just engaging in its own form of value billing? It seems to me that they assign a value to the typical services performed by an attorney in a typical probate case, regardless of whether more (or less?) service was required in any specific case. Isn’t this “one size fits all” approach to fees what you have railed against in other discussions?

I endorsed a differential billing approach because I saw it as a way to bring rates down, not up. I remember back in my law firm days when a partner would scrutinize my documents and make a couple of stylistic changes and probably charge for 3 or 4 hours of partner review. That’s crazy; that kind of work shouldn’t be charged at $600 an hour, but $150 or $200 an hour because it’s comparable to what an associate does. The other example comes from bankruptcy cases. Purportedly, the bankruptcy lawyers who charge $600-$800 an hour do so to reflect their “value.” Well to me, value means resolving a 5 hour mess in a half hour. The bankruptcy lawyers bill tons of hours on bankruptcy cases, which suggests to me that they’re working on mundane aspects and charging top rates for strategy or expertise. I know that it would be confusing, not to mention subjective, to charge differential rates, but given that partners charge so much and often do routine work on cases that associates can handle, it seems to be a concept worth considering.

It was a very funny post though.

Thanks for a little moral support, Jolyon.   When folks with a financial interest insist something is “the only way,” I don’t think “weak mind,” I think “blinded by profit-motive” and maybe “weak conscience.”

David

I’m with you here, and thanks for the most amusing take on the situation.

I remember vaguely getting inadvertently into an online ‘debate’ with Ron [Fulano] about value billing and being shouted down, like you courtesy of Mr Stein, as “someone who doesn’t get it”. OK, I thought, let’s ask my American clients (I’m a City of London solicitor) who are extremely sophisticated users of legal services. They unerringly took the Jackie Cliente approach to value billing and told me to stick with the hourly rate.

I think value billing probably does have a place somewhere, but Ron and his cohorts insist that it is the *only* way. That is usually, in my experience, the sign of a weak mind.

All the best
Jolyon