Comments on: ALF #1: other thoughtful voices on the lawyer billing debate

By: Walter Olson - Overlawyered Roundup March 23

Walter Olson - Overlawyered Roundup March 23 — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 03:06:07 +0000

[...] He signs off with a four-part series on lawyer billing and fairness to consumers/clients: parts one, two, three, four. He’s keeping the site as archives, though, and let’s hope that as [...]

By: David Giacalone

David Giacalone — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:43:47 +0000

You are very welcome, Lance. Value — quality service at reasonable prices — what a great concept.

By: Lance Godard

Lance Godard — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:34:22 +0000

David: thanks for including me in your analysis. Appreciate too your thoughtful post, which helps move the debate from “let’s beat up the billable hour” to “how can we ensure that clients are getting value.”

By: Jeff Lipshaw

Jeff Lipshaw — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 11:15:06 +0000

Thanks for the kind words. Always good to get the perspective of another old fart. Can’t find your e-mail. Drop me a note.

By: David Giacalone

David Giacalone — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 03:48:26 +0000

Thanks for taking the time to tell us your perspective and experience, Margaret. Looking at a situation from the client’s perspective and seeking client input is a necessity — but, not in order to charge more than we believe is fair for our services.

I do not believe your business context is very relevant to the sort of legal clients that interest me most — individuals who must solve personal issues like divorce, home purchasing, personal injury, criminal accusations, etc. A lawyer should not ask such persons to put a dollar figure on “what’s in it for me” and should not be trying to extract every possible dollar. We are a service profession, not business partners of our clients.

By the way, there is no excuse for a firm trying to sneak partner level fees for standard work that will be done by junior attorneys.

By: Margaret Holmes

Margaret Holmes — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 02:00:32 +0000

I read your article with interest – as we are an accounting firm with an aversion to time sheets and an enthusiastic supporter of value priced billing for accounting firms. Our experience shows most accounting firms undervalue rather than over value their services.

A client was recently involved in two property transactions and the legal firm concerned kindly provided with a “value priced quote” that was some 20-25% higher than competing firms. The letter explained what they would be doing (a simple sale & purchase in each case with no financing) but at no point indicated the value to the client. The “what’s in it for me” is what supports the price not how is it done.

This resulted in increased client disenchantment. They know that there is very limited partner involvement (if any) in these standard transactions and yet appear to be levied at partner hourly rates. Learning to look at it from the client perspective and seeking client feedback would be a huge advancement.