You have0 free article left this month.
Register for a free account to access unlimited free content.
You have 0 free article left this month.
Register for a free account to access unlimited free content.

Lawyers Weekly - legal news for Australian lawyers

Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
lawyers weekly logo

Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA

Goodbye job applications, hello dream career
Seize control of your career and design the future you deserve with LW career

Poll reveals cost of billable hours is too high

A Lawyers Weekly poll has found that almost half of voters believe billable hours are harmful to the legal profession.

user iconStephanie Quine 08 November 2012 SME Law
Poll reveals cost of billable hours is too high
expand image

A Lawyers Weekly poll has found that almost half of voters believe billable hours are harmful to the legal profession.

In the website poll, which asked: Is it time to phase out billable hours?, 47 per cent of respondents said they believed billable hours were harmful to the profession.

Thirty per cent of voters in the poll, which attracted more than 400 responses, said billable hours should ‘maybe’ be phased out, but only once a widely-accepted alternative option has been established.

This suggests that many legal professionals are “waiting for someone else to come up and tell us how to bill in an alternative way”, according to Matt McCormick, the founder of newly-established Brisbane firm McCormicks Law and Consulting.

McCormick (pictured) is focused on implementing “value-based billing” at his new firm.

“It took a long time for me to have the courage to break out and start a firm on a platform that doesn’t use time as a core component for the basis of the relationship with your customers and also the way that you deal with your staff and your colleagues,” he said.

It can be very demoralising to highly-educated and creative individuals who have to justify daily timesheets to clients as well as management within a firm, McCormick said, adding that it stifles innovation and forces lawyers to focus on a spreadsheet as opposed to what their clients are engaging them for.

Morgan Solomon, a director at Perth-based Bowen Buchbinder Vilensky Lawyers (BBV) makes the very same point.

“When you give a client a bill that’s based on time billing what you’re showing them is the labour pains when all they wanted to see was the baby,” he said, quoting Ron Baker, one of the founders of the VeraSage Institute.

Thirteen per cent of respondents to the poll said that timesheets were the best way to charge clients and measure a lawyer’s productivity, but legal professionals like McCormick, Solomon, John Chisholm, Michael Bradley and Joydeep Hor disagree with that view.

“It’s hard to convince people who are making profit to change... it’s risk free for the firm, but it’s sub-optimal,” said Solomon, “it’s profitable, but only for the partners, it burns out the young lawyers and creates great resentment within the profession and certainly within clients, so it’s not doing us any favours."

That gulf between the risk and the relationship can be unbridgeable, said McCormick.

“If you’re prepared to share the risk then your relationship only gets stronger,” he said.

True alternatives
Ten per cent of those who responded to Lawyers Weekly’s poll believe it’s time to phase out billable hours because clients are already demanding it.

Some firms have responded to this demand by offering fixed-fee alternatives, but McCormick is not convinced that this represents anything different than hourly billing.

At his previous firm, Walsh Halligan Douglas (WHD), where he was managing partner, there were some areas of practice that used fixed-fee billing, but McCormick said it was based on the time taken in the past to do a similar activity.

“You’re still feeding the beast, you’re still putting your time in the system so you’re still focused on the time and the timesheet,” he said.

Solomon described the practice as time billing in drag. One way BBV looks at pricing in terms of value to the client is through reference to metrics used by the Federal Court cost scale.

The scale assesses the value and cost of matters by the complexity of the matter; the difficulty or novelty of the questions involved; the skill, specialised knowledge and responsibility involved; the period during which the work was done; urgency; time spent on performing the work; the quality of the work; the number and importance of the documents prepared and read, regardless of length; the amount or value of property involved, and any other relevant matter.

“What’s interesting to me is that really time is just one of the factors that they look at, there are all these other subjective elements,” said Solomon.

“If the Federal Court is willing to recognise that value is subjective, it’s amazing that we don’t as lawyers, we still adhere to this rigid idea that there’s once price for everyone and that’s it.”

Some customers place high importance on turnaround time, others place it on their ability to contact you where and whenever without being charged in increments of each phone call.

“You don’t need to boil the ocean to make a cup of tea,” said McCormick.

Lawyers may be very good estimators, he said, but hourly billing has stifled their ability to develop pricing skills.
“No one teaches lawyers how to price in the way that other industries develop a great skill in pricing and value,” he said.

BBV has been working on phasing out billable hours for almost three years and Solomon said the firm is only now starting to get the feel for pricing based on value.

He said BBV has attracted a number of sophisticated clients, including a large fund manager in Melbourne, solely because they have heard about the firm’s alternative pricing.

“These clients are good users of legal services, they’re commercial people and they’re tired of the mystery bill at the end of the month showing how many hours are spent,” said Solomon.

“Timesheets themselves are one of the key problems with client’s perceptions of the profession as being outdated and rapacious and lawyers themselves finding this interminable adherence through capturing and recording hours as soul destroying.”

Comments (22)
  • Avatar
    <p>umm time billing is rapcious and value pricing is not yet according to the value pricing converts value pricing is more profitable. It follows therefore, that x matters per annum on a time spent basis yeilds y profit whereas x matters on a value pricing basis yields y+ profit. No, my actual experience workign within the value pricing model led me to conclude that value pricing was merely client profiling and the vsalue was arbitrarily determined by the law practice. Perhaps the value pricing converts should discuss thier pricing model with thier plumber next time they have sewerage blockage - whats the value of a plumber's 30 minutes use of his unblocking gadget? Lets be honest guys...value priocing is rapacious - FIXED FEE PRICING ... now that is something entirely different.</p>
    0
  • Avatar
    <p>Cynic<br>I agree with your billing advice points 1-5 above. However, you can do all of that without reference to an hourly rate. When you say, "get it wrong" I presume you mean spend more in hours X rate than you quoted as a flat fee. You probably did not need to track your hours to know that, or if you did, the difference was not worth worrying about. So you are correct to say "take it on the chin" but that's actually too harsh. In what sense have you lost anything if you under estimated the required time by 10 or 20%? It's still marginal revenue at zero marginal cost, that is unless it truly crowded out other paying work, which is rarely if ever the case. So why track the time in the first place,if, as suggested in the article, doing so has such adverse effects on morale, efficiency. etc. Bottom line, lawyers track time because they bill for time, and they bill for time because they track time. It's totally circular and useless logic. If you read up on the history of the billable hour, invented by Reginald Heber Smith, you will learn it was never intended to be a pricing mechanism, and that its value as a management tool is highly questionable, based as it is on the adaptation of Taylorism (scientific industrial management) to an intellectual exercise - a poor fit at best, and all the worse as Taylor was later shown to have fudged his data.</p>
    0
  • Avatar
    <p>Cynic - I agree that firms should reward lawyers for the quality and creativity of their work, but as long as they measure time, that will never really happen.</p>
    0
  • Avatar
    <p>Cynic - let's start with time. Labor does not equal time and laywers are not laborers. We use our accumulated knowledge and training to solve problems for clients. Yes. some things take time, and one must take care not to over-schedule, but this is not the same thing as paying laborers by the hour. You are a solo. Ask yourself this question: When you work an additional hour, are you $200 poorer (until you collect your fee?)? If you choose not to work on a Wednesday, are those 24 hours still available to you? IN both cases, I suspect the answer is no. Therefore, time is not a cost. Furthermore, if, as I suspect, you assign some arbitrary rate to your time, what do you base that on? Could you not assign a higher or lower value? Yes, of course you could. Here again,this is different than true economic costs. Any resource to which you can assign an arbitrary price is not a real cost. If you buy raw materials at $X per pound, that is a cost, and you must track it to know your profit. If, on the other hand, you simply make up a number and assign that to each hour, you are doing nothing but guessing. When I say time is a constraint I mean that there are a limited number of hours in a day, and no amount of money will buy any more, unless you hire more people.. As a solo, however, your hours are fixed, and I strongly suspect you don't come close to using all of them to practice law. Therefore, the marginal cost (in the accounting sense), on any given day, of working an additional hour is ZERO until you have used all 24 hours and then it is (for that day) INFINITE. Any "cost" that has only two values, ZERO and INFINITY, is obviously useless in any rational pricing analysis. That is why I say that the billable hour paradigm is economically illiterate.</p><p>But you may say, "Isn't there an opportunity cost of billing an hour to one client instead of another?" Perhaps, but only if you are truly at the margin, meaning something approaching 8760 hours per year, and no one works that much (nor should they). Again, at the margin under any reasonable scenario, the true economic cost of working an additional hour is effectively zero. It is therefore useless as a pricing variable.</p><p>"But shouldn't we track our time so that we can efficiently allocate resources?" Perhaps, but the paradigm of measuring time in tenths of an hour is akin to weighing elephants by the ounce - it's far too precise to be usefui, especially given the time and expense devoted to tracking it in such detail. I submit that very little additional information, in the theoretical sense of the word, is gained by continuously tracking your time every minute of every day, as compared to a very rough estimate, along the lines of "Wow, that took a lot longer than I expected - I'll set the price higher next time."or better yet "I need to find a better way to handle these [XYZ] matters, or stop accepting them, because I can make more money with les effort doing {fill in the blank]. The problem with tracking and billing hours is that it papers over the real differences in productivity. If you can get flat fees of $10,000 for certain matters, and only $2,000 for other matters that take the same amount of time, you should take only the $10,000 matters, at least until there are no more. You'll make much more money. When you charge everything at the same rate, you accept matters that you undervalue your strengths, and you sell exceptional work for too low a price, all because you average it all out to a single rate.</p><p>I could go on, but I hope I have clarified my earlier statements. I guess I could sum it up by saying that selling your intellectual expertise by the hour is like selling gold by the inch. You can measure it very precisely, but you'll only get the right price by accident.</p><p>Thomas Bowden - (Economics major and MBA in finance)</p>
    0
  • Avatar
    <p>Good point. Perhaps law firms culture of "plebs" at the bottom and "we keep you alive to row this ship" Partners at the top needs to change. Imagine what the billing system and pressure would be like if there was a shortage of lawyers. With intense competition (brought about by too many lawyers and law firms) of course there is pressure to bill. Look at some of the poor work done by stressed out partners (and the client no doubt pays for it) as opposed to what lawyers could do if they were more relaxed (they can't be relaxed if they have to meet billing quotas). The end result is clients get billed for poor quality work, there is no personal relationship, the lawyers are stressed, the clients are unhappy. do dentists rush you in, overcharge you, and have billable hours per day? (Yes to an extent). My point is...too many files, too much pressure happens in over-crowded saturated markets...and the obsession with billing is a part of that. Clients will want high quality work, but the lawyers are under so much pressure to perform that the quality of the work is decreasing...all in the name of the billable hour. Mistakes are made (and no doubt being made) and I recall a recent poll somewhere that 50% of lawyers fudged their fees...it seems "billing" is put over and above "quality". Big law firms have turned into something akin to a conveyor belt or sausage factory producing less and less quality work (we've probably all seen it over the years)...its like being a painter. Instead of having the time to paint properly, its all about mass sausage production.</p>
    0
  • Avatar
    <p>I don't see how fees would be reasonable if there were less lawyers? I'm meant to be the absurd one.</p>
    0
  • Avatar
    Get Real- smell the roses. Friday, 16 November 2012
    <p>What about reducing the number of law graduates and law firms in the first place? Law seems like Kmart vs Target vs Fosseys vs Franklins now. Too many firms not enough work going around. Look at South Korea- less than 5000 lawyers for 30 million people. Compare that to NSW! Bottom line is...law is now a commodity as opposed to an "honorable profession", a fiction which those at the top end of the market like to still believe. It's an overcrowded shrinking marketplace and clients will go to whoever is cheaper if they believe they are getting the same work quality. This only happens if you have too many lawyers in the first place- costs go down, quality goes down etc all the while clients are demanding A1 Quality work for less and less money. If there were less lawyers, fees would be reasonable, work quality would improve, work-life balance would improve etc. Instead the focus seems to be as Shakespeare said "let's kill all the lawyers". Cut costs, complain about billable hours, demand greater efficiency etc. The pie is shrinking and the middle class is being priced out of the legal market. Most solicitors now are file clerks, Cut the number of lawyers and law firms and bring back decent conditions and wages to the market and you might have a much better client relationship. By the way the average Northern Territory policeman earns more after graduating from police college ($90k with allowances) than the average solicitor with 5 years of experience. What does that tell you about the "honorable profession"?</p>
    0
  • Avatar
    <p>"innovative and different", like cigarettes being "smoother and milder"</p><p>Than what? We never hear.</p>
    0
  • Avatar
    <p>Thanks for you comments Patrick. I must admit I am no wiser after reading your post as to how practitioners like yourself go about the process of value pricing. However, I find it somewhat hard to believe that there is absolutely no consideration of the cost of labour and the number of hours of labour which the particular work will take. That is the way every business I have every dealt with operates (except merchant bankers who seem to think that they can just take a percentage of the total value of the transaction regardless of how much work they actually do).</p><p>I may not know the latest science in terms of value pricing, being a fairly simple Aussie sole practitioner, but I do know that after five years of private practice I have never had even one bad debt from a client not paying their bill. Why? I think there are a few general rules to offering clients true value whilst still using the humble hourly rate. I came up with these general rules after doing a fairly informal survey of a number of clients about what the hated about lawyers bills:</p><p>(1) clients want to know with some certainty how much some work will cost - they don't want a lawyer to tell them that the work is going to cost between say $40,000 and $60,000 and then include 60 caveats which may result in the costs rising to $100,000.</p><p>(2) if you get your fixed cost quote wrong, take it in on the chin rather than trying to get the client to pay more.</p><p>(3) clients hate complicate bills with additional charges for photocopying, travel, phone calls, faxes, etc. They would prefer just one simply hourly rate which includes all those on-costs.</p><p>(4) clients hate paying lawyers to sit in taxis or airplanes, so don't charge your client for travelling to meetings with the client. There are not many other professions which try to charge a client for travelling out to see them.</p><p>(5) clients hate paying for advice which is highly qualified and which does not commit to a particular legal position. In these situations, the client sees the lawyer as being more concerned about their own liability due to giving the wrong advice, rather than on actually trying to resolve the client's legal problems. Lawyers have to commit to a position and if they can't do that they shouldn't be giving the so called advice.</p><p>Those are my humble suggestions as to how to give clients value and avoiding the things which most clients seem to hate.</p>
    0
  • Avatar
    <p>Wow! That was quite a post. Unfortunately, I don't agree with a number of things which you said in your post. For example, I don't wuite get your comments that billing by the hour is economically illiterate and that time is not a cost but a constraint. That might sound catchy but it is not consistent with any economics I have studied. Labour costs are a key cost in any business, and often the largest cost. Businesses have to know what their labour costs and make sure they are fully recovering those costs. Also the statement that the marginal cost of an hour is ZERO is simply wrong as a statement of economics.</p><p>Quite apart from that point, it seems you were missing the entire point of my post. The debate in Australian about billable hours arose largely from the effects that billable hours were having on the mental health of the profession. You make mention of this issue in your post - that billable hours are demoralising. My central point (which you don't really tackle) was that law firms have to start taking a different approach to valuing the work of their employees - rather than looking at the number of billable hours staff are amassing each day, law firms should be looking at "rewarding staff for (the) quality and creativity and their work.</p>
    0
Avatar
Attach images by dragging & dropping or by selecting them.
The maximum file size for uploads is MB. Only files are allowed.
 
The maximum number of 3 allowed files to upload has been reached. If you want to upload more files you have to delete one of the existing uploaded files first.
The maximum number of 3 allowed files to upload has been reached. If you want to upload more files you have to delete one of the existing uploaded files first.
Posting as
You need to be a member to post comments. Become a member for free today!