Articles Posted in The Billable Hour Business Model


The Point

“In 2020, 16.8% of [corporate legal] matters had some portion of their billing under an arrangement other than hourly billing”, according to the most recent LexisNexis / CounselLink trends report on U.S. law firms’ charges to U.S. corporations (2021 report based on 12 months of data between January 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020).

Which invites a working hypothesis, or at least a question:

Where a business finds the gumption to negotiate robustly with outside counsel on price, might corporate purchasing power prevail over lawyerly inertia? Continue reading


Lawyers have long engaged in loose and hopeful speculation that law firms will stop basing their charges on the time it takes attorneys to do their work, and that corporate clients will soon be able to pay legal fees based on a pre-agreed value of attorneys’ services.

For instance, a full five years ago, the influential Georgetown Law Center / Peer Monitor’ 2017 Report on the State of the Legal Market announced, “The Death of Traditional Billable Hour Pricing” — and its replacement with “alternative fee arrangements” and “budget-based pricing”.

But the facts don’t bear this out. Witness a recent and prominent case in point reported in last Monday’s legal insider publication Above the Law: Continue reading


The Point

Legal journalists like to say that in-house counsel are much better positioned than outside lawyers to adopt labor-saving and accuracy-enhancing workflow processes, and the technology to support them, since they don’t have to maximize hours billed.

Despite what one might expect, Thomson Reuters’ “State of the UK Legal Market 2022“, issued this month, demonstrates that in-house counsel are laggards in using the systems and software that can save lawyers’ time and catch their mistakes. Continue reading


The Point

Many in the U.S. legal profession have long touted “pricing innovation”, promising corporate clients savings and cost certainty.

As of 2022 these promises remain largely empty.

Because in the U.S. corporate legal sector the billable hour continues to prevail. By a wide margin. So says the 2022 State of Corporate Law Departments Report issued by Thomson Reuters Institute, provider of information and technology to attorneys. Continue reading


News Item

From the American Bar Association Journal, January 27, 2022:

“Goodwin Procter is providing ‘thoughtfully curated weeklong’ trips to associates and some other billers, so they can get relaxation time on the law firm’s tab … The trips are valued at $5,000 to $10,000, depending on lawyer seniority.

Those eligible for the program include associates, professional track attorneys, science advisers and science law clerks who billed at least 1,950 hours last year, according to Reuters.”

Continue reading


Excerpt from the Financial Times article (subscription required) cited in my Wednesday, January 28 post:

A female partner at Skadden [Arps law firm] says: ‘When a lawyer has done 2,500 billable hours in a year the law firm goes ‘hurrah’. In many other businesses, she says, ‘management would be saying hang on, have we got a mental health issue here? Are we distributing work poorly?As long as our profession charges clients and rewards success and gives bonus by reference to chargeable hours [nothing will change].‘”


The Point

The legal profession’s business model incentivizes physical and mental exhaustion by looking to hours billed as the yardstick by which an attorney is measured.

This is bad for the lawyer and bad for the client.

This Matters to Your Business

A recent piece in the Financial Times documents this (“Junior lawyer burnout:M&A boom accelerates exit from elite firms”, Jan. 2, 2022)(subscription required).

Put aside for the moment that a large percentage of hours billed come from recent law grads whose experience is scant and whose training is thin.

Given the stakes for a client business, legal work is intellectually demanding — so mental acuity is imperative. And even the most proficient lawyer isn’t at his or her best without adequate rest and mental health.

Yet, as the Financial Times article states:

“Law firms are strict hierarchies in which associates work in cohorts under partners who dole out their work and monitor their performance, based largely on ‘billable hours’. Associates at top-flight firms are generally expected to bill anything from 1,900 to 2,200 hours a year … training, business development and other pressures add hundreds more, depending on the firm.”

Continue reading


As former general counsel and legal innovator Jeff Carr tweeted the day after the above headline:

“OMG!… Wait, didn’t this story run in 1998, and 2001 and 2008 and 2014 and, well every year there’s a survey? Oh well, might be a slow news day.”


This is old news. Really old news. Though I guess it doesn’t hurt to run a survey for current, empirical confirmation.

According to a corporate general counsel group called “In the House” and, 73% of in-house counsel believe their legal department are spending too much on their outside counsel.

Chris Colvin, head of “In the House”, offered some context:

“He noted that the survey was sent to in-house counsel before the pandemic caused by the new coronavirus began. He said he expects the number of in-house counsel who think they are spending too much on outside counsel would increase if the survey were done today.”

Continue reading

Last Thursday (March 5, 2020) I was, for the umpteenth time, shocked to be reminded of how un-businesslike the legal industry’s billable hour-based business model really is.

I say “un-businesslike” rather than “crazy” — or something more colorful — because the clients I serve are businesses themselves. And their businesses succeed or fail based on their results.

The legal industry (the vast majority at least) demands that their client businesses pay on the basis of lawyers’ inputs. And as I explain below, law firms charging by the billable hour business model routinely misstate what those inputs are.

So it’s no wonder that lawyers and business people have such a hard time understanding each other.

They literally occupy different universes.

From a commercial standpoint at least.

So what shocked me last Thursday?

Continue reading

P&L executives concerned with managing legal risk and controlling legal costs should know that artificial intelligence (AI) promises greater accuracy and lower costs in litigation tasks. If and when the legal industry adopts the technology.

And last month some of this promise appears to have been realized in some concrete, and economically accessible, terms. Again, conditional on actually acceptance and use of this AI. 

For a business, litigation is (usually) a huge waste of money. And a large chunk of this wasted money goes to formal requests that lawyers make to judges. Requests that they and their adversaries spend lots of time (read “money”) fighting over in front of a judge.

It’s called “motion practice”: Your honor, please dismiss this case; please exclude this testimony; please make my adversary give me the papers in their files that I want to look at; etc.

In a legal industry where the number of hours billed (usually) defines value, this typically results in each law firm assigning not just a litigation veteran whom they put in charge of the case — but also multiple, less-experienced attorneys to maximize those hours billed.

How do these less-experienced attorneys fit in here? Happily (for the legal industry’s business model at least), “motion practice” requires lots of what those recent law grads were trained to do when still in law school: Researching cases, statutes, and rules; and creating “briefs” that describe why those legal authorities require that their client’s requests (via this “motion practice”) should be granted.

Late last month, Casetext, a legal tech firm known for its artificial intelligence (AI) research tool “Case Analysis Research Assistant” (CARA), announced “Compose”, their automated brief-writing product.

Continue reading

Contact Information