Comments on: Is $400 an Hour Pro Bono? http://myshingle.com/2005/02/articles/pro-bono/is-400-an-hour-pro-bono/ Great Things Come in Small [Law] Practices! Thu, 10 May 2012 10:49:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Jim Logan http://myshingle.com/2005/02/articles/pro-bono/is-400-an-hour-pro-bono/#comment-195 Jim Logan Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:03:54 +0000 http://174.120.83.8/~sh1ngl3/100/is-400-an-hour-pro-bono/#comment-195 Law firms are for profit businesses - their revenue model is the billable hour. This is a formula for abuse and your post highlights the negative realities of this model. Is this pro bono work? How could anyone say "Yes" with a straight face? It doesn't pass the laugh test. Charging an average of $400 an hour is absurd. Especially when you note paraprofessional services were included in your calculation. Would you pay anything other than labor rates for labor tasks on a construction project? Why would I ever pay associate or partner rates for paraprofessional tasks? I'm sure their billing included a healthy amount of administrative, clerical, and team billing too. Legal is the only professional service I can think of where G&A is billed twice - once in the rate of the timekeeper and once in the activity of the timekeeper. I like the comment from DLS regarding the value of their '$9 million bill on a $300 million award', I think this is an excellent question and issue to ponder. Value-based billing is where I believe all professional services should evolve. To me, billing by the hour is putting value on the least valuable component of your offering - from the perspective of a customer - your time. Law firms are for profit businesses – their revenue model is the billable hour. This is a formula for abuse and your post highlights the negative realities of this model.
Is this pro bono work? How could anyone say “Yes” with a straight face? It doesn’t pass the laugh test.
Charging an average of $400 an hour is absurd. Especially when you note paraprofessional services were included in your calculation. Would you pay anything other than labor rates for labor tasks on a construction project? Why would I ever pay associate or partner rates for paraprofessional tasks?
I’m sure their billing included a healthy amount of administrative, clerical, and team billing too. Legal is the only professional service I can think of where G&A is billed twice – once in the rate of the timekeeper and once in the activity of the timekeeper.
I like the comment from DLS regarding the value of their ‘$9 million bill on a $300 million award’, I think this is an excellent question and issue to ponder. Value-based billing is where I believe all professional services should evolve. To me, billing by the hour is putting value on the least valuable component of your offering – from the perspective of a customer – your time.

]]> By: Jim Logan http://myshingle.com/2005/02/articles/pro-bono/is-400-an-hour-pro-bono/#comment-6122 Jim Logan Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:03:00 +0000 http://174.120.83.8/~sh1ngl3/100/is-400-an-hour-pro-bono/#comment-6122 Law firms are for profit businesses - their revenue model is the billable hour. This is a formula for abuse and your post highlights the negative realities of this model. Is this pro bono work? How could anyone say "Yes" with a straight face? It doesn't pass the laugh test. Charging an average of $400 an hour is absurd. Especially when you note paraprofessional services were included in your calculation. Would you pay anything other than labor rates for labor tasks on a construction project? Why would I ever pay associate or partner rates for paraprofessional tasks? I'm sure their billing included a healthy amount of administrative, clerical, and team billing too. Legal is the only professional service I can think of where G&A is billed twice - once in the rate of the timekeeper and once in the activity of the timekeeper. I like the comment from DLS regarding the value of their '$9 million bill on a $300 million award', I think this is an excellent question and issue to ponder. Value-based billing is where I believe all professional services should evolve. To me, billing by the hour is putting value on the least valuable component of your offering - from the perspective of a customer - your time. Law firms are for profit businesses – their revenue model is the billable hour. This is a formula for abuse and your post highlights the negative realities of this model.
Is this pro bono work? How could anyone say “Yes” with a straight face? It doesn’t pass the laugh test.
Charging an average of $400 an hour is absurd. Especially when you note paraprofessional services were included in your calculation. Would you pay anything other than labor rates for labor tasks on a construction project? Why would I ever pay associate or partner rates for paraprofessional tasks?
I’m sure their billing included a healthy amount of administrative, clerical, and team billing too. Legal is the only professional service I can think of where G&A is billed twice – once in the rate of the timekeeper and once in the activity of the timekeeper.
I like the comment from DLS regarding the value of their ‘$9 million bill on a $300 million award’, I think this is an excellent question and issue to ponder. Value-based billing is where I believe all professional services should evolve. To me, billing by the hour is putting value on the least valuable component of your offering – from the perspective of a customer – your time.

]]> By: Legal Blog Watch http://myshingle.com/2005/02/articles/pro-bono/is-400-an-hour-pro-bono/#comment-196 Legal Blog Watch Thu, 10 Feb 2005 18:30:23 +0000 http://174.120.83.8/~sh1ngl3/100/is-400-an-hour-pro-bono/#comment-196 <strong>HEY, $400 AN HOUR IS CHEAP! YOU SHOULD SEE WHAT I CHARGE MY PARISH!</strong> Last December, Carolyn Elefant asked whether or not the rates charged by solos and small firms to low-income clients -- including forgiving bills and creating installment plans -- should be considered pro bono. Now she writes: HEY, $400 AN HOUR IS CHEAP! YOU SHOULD SEE WHAT I CHARGE MY PARISH!

Last December, Carolyn Elefant asked whether or not the rates charged by solos and small firms to low-income clients — including forgiving bills and creating installment plans — should be considered pro bono. Now she writes:

]]> By: Legal Blog Watch http://myshingle.com/2005/02/articles/pro-bono/is-400-an-hour-pro-bono/#comment-6123 Legal Blog Watch Thu, 10 Feb 2005 18:30:00 +0000 http://174.120.83.8/~sh1ngl3/100/is-400-an-hour-pro-bono/#comment-6123 <strong>HEY, $400 AN HOUR IS CHEAP! YOU SHOULD SEE WHAT I CHARGE MY PARISH!</strong> Last December, Carolyn Elefant asked whether or not the rates charged by solos and small firms to low-income clients -- including forgiving bills and creating installment plans -- should be considered pro bono. Now she writes: HEY, $400 AN HOUR IS CHEAP! YOU SHOULD SEE WHAT I CHARGE MY PARISH!

Last December, Carolyn Elefant asked whether or not the rates charged by solos and small firms to low-income clients — including forgiving bills and creating installment plans — should be considered pro bono. Now she writes:

]]> By: DLS http://myshingle.com/2005/02/articles/pro-bono/is-400-an-hour-pro-bono/#comment-194 DLS Thu, 10 Feb 2005 16:30:44 +0000 http://174.120.83.8/~sh1ngl3/100/is-400-an-hour-pro-bono/#comment-194 Well put, Carolyn. Well put, Carolyn.

]]> By: DLS http://myshingle.com/2005/02/articles/pro-bono/is-400-an-hour-pro-bono/#comment-6121 DLS Thu, 10 Feb 2005 16:30:00 +0000 http://174.120.83.8/~sh1ngl3/100/is-400-an-hour-pro-bono/#comment-6121 Well put, Carolyn. Well put, Carolyn.

]]> By: Carolyn Elefant http://myshingle.com/2005/02/articles/pro-bono/is-400-an-hour-pro-bono/#comment-193 Carolyn Elefant Wed, 09 Feb 2005 20:20:30 +0000 http://174.120.83.8/~sh1ngl3/100/is-400-an-hour-pro-bono/#comment-193 I don't know about what others in the blogosphere are saying about this case, but from my perspective - and that of many of the commenters, the real problem is not so much the $9 million in fees but rather, that seeking to recover those fees makes the pro bono nature of the project a sham. In addition, without knowing more, I can't say per se, that $9 million in legal fees for a $300 million award is reasonable from an ethical standpoint. Certainly, from a cost benefit analysis, a $9 million investment for a $300 million return is excellent. But that doesn't make the legal fee reasonable under the Ethics Code. I looked up the bio of Jose Allen, the partner seeking the $810/hour at the Skadden site. Now granted, this guy is a top rate litigator with experience in multi-million dollar tort claims, complex securities and environmental litigation. But I didn't see that he's any kind of an expert on ADA which was the subject of the suit. So under an objective standard, I'm not sure how the $810/hour is reasonable in this particular case. I don’t know about what others in the blogosphere are saying about this case, but from my perspective – and that of many of the commenters, the real problem is not so much the $9 million in fees but rather, that seeking to recover those fees makes the pro bono nature of the project a sham.
In addition, without knowing more, I can’t say per se, that $9 million in legal fees for a $300 million award is reasonable from an ethical standpoint. Certainly, from a cost benefit analysis, a $9 million investment for a $300 million return is excellent. But that doesn’t make the legal fee reasonable under the Ethics Code. I looked up the bio of Jose Allen, the partner seeking the $810/hour at the Skadden site. Now granted, this guy is a top rate litigator with experience in multi-million dollar tort claims, complex securities and environmental litigation. But I didn’t see that he’s any kind of an expert on ADA which was the subject of the suit. So under an objective standard, I’m not sure how the $810/hour is reasonable in this particular case.

]]> By: Carolyn Elefant http://myshingle.com/2005/02/articles/pro-bono/is-400-an-hour-pro-bono/#comment-6120 Carolyn Elefant Wed, 09 Feb 2005 20:20:00 +0000 http://174.120.83.8/~sh1ngl3/100/is-400-an-hour-pro-bono/#comment-6120 I don't know about what others in the blogosphere are saying about this case, but from my perspective - and that of many of the commenters, the real problem is not so much the $9 million in fees but rather, that seeking to recover those fees makes the pro bono nature of the project a sham. In addition, without knowing more, I can't say per se, that $9 million in legal fees for a $300 million award is reasonable from an ethical standpoint. Certainly, from a cost benefit analysis, a $9 million investment for a $300 million return is excellent. But that doesn't make the legal fee reasonable under the Ethics Code. I looked up the bio of Jose Allen, the partner seeking the $810/hour at the Skadden site. Now granted, this guy is a top rate litigator with experience in multi-million dollar tort claims, complex securities and environmental litigation. But I didn't see that he's any kind of an expert on ADA which was the subject of the suit. So under an objective standard, I'm not sure how the $810/hour is reasonable in this particular case. I don’t know about what others in the blogosphere are saying about this case, but from my perspective – and that of many of the commenters, the real problem is not so much the $9 million in fees but rather, that seeking to recover those fees makes the pro bono nature of the project a sham.
In addition, without knowing more, I can’t say per se, that $9 million in legal fees for a $300 million award is reasonable from an ethical standpoint. Certainly, from a cost benefit analysis, a $9 million investment for a $300 million return is excellent. But that doesn’t make the legal fee reasonable under the Ethics Code. I looked up the bio of Jose Allen, the partner seeking the $810/hour at the Skadden site. Now granted, this guy is a top rate litigator with experience in multi-million dollar tort claims, complex securities and environmental litigation. But I didn’t see that he’s any kind of an expert on ADA which was the subject of the suit. So under an objective standard, I’m not sure how the $810/hour is reasonable in this particular case.

]]> By: DLS http://myshingle.com/2005/02/articles/pro-bono/is-400-an-hour-pro-bono/#comment-192 DLS Wed, 09 Feb 2005 20:03:02 +0000 http://174.120.83.8/~sh1ngl3/100/is-400-an-hour-pro-bono/#comment-192 Yes, of course, claiming that the work was <i>pro bono</i> and then submitting a bill for $9 million is absolutely absurd. That having been said, in my opinion, so are mandatory <i>pro bono</i> requirements. This story is all over the blawgosphere, and it seems to me that people are more upset about the $9 million figure than they are about the absurdity of the claim that it was <i>pro bono</i> work. Even if the claim had never been made, I suspect that people would be lashing out at the bill amount anyway. Put into context, however, is a $9 million bill on a $300 million award really all that absurd? If it wasn't for biglaw responding to the defendant's "tennis balls" with cannon fire, would the plaintiffs have been able to settle for such a large sum? I hate to defend biglaw, and I would like to see them retract the assertion that their work was <i>pro bono</i>, but let us not be so quick to crucify them. After all, how many solos would be able to put up 20,000 hours of billable hours on a case they might never see a nickel from? Yes, of course, claiming that the work was pro bono and then submitting a bill for $9 million is absolutely absurd. That having been said, in my opinion, so are mandatory pro bono requirements.
This story is all over the blawgosphere, and it seems to me that people are more upset about the $9 million figure than they are about the absurdity of the claim that it was pro bono work. Even if the claim had never been made, I suspect that people would be lashing out at the bill amount anyway.
Put into context, however, is a $9 million bill on a $300 million award really all that absurd? If it wasn’t for biglaw responding to the defendant’s “tennis balls” with cannon fire, would the plaintiffs have been able to settle for such a large sum?
I hate to defend biglaw, and I would like to see them retract the assertion that their work was pro bono, but let us not be so quick to crucify them. After all, how many solos would be able to put up 20,000 hours of billable hours on a case they might never see a nickel from?

]]> By: DLS http://myshingle.com/2005/02/articles/pro-bono/is-400-an-hour-pro-bono/#comment-6119 DLS Wed, 09 Feb 2005 20:03:00 +0000 http://174.120.83.8/~sh1ngl3/100/is-400-an-hour-pro-bono/#comment-6119 Yes, of course, claiming that the work was <i>pro bono</i> and then submitting a bill for $9 million is absolutely absurd. That having been said, in my opinion, so are mandatory <i>pro bono</i> requirements. This story is all over the blawgosphere, and it seems to me that people are more upset about the $9 million figure than they are about the absurdity of the claim that it was <i>pro bono</i> work. Even if the claim had never been made, I suspect that people would be lashing out at the bill amount anyway. Put into context, however, is a $9 million bill on a $300 million award really all that absurd? If it wasn't for biglaw responding to the defendant's "tennis balls" with cannon fire, would the plaintiffs have been able to settle for such a large sum? I hate to defend biglaw, and I would like to see them retract the assertion that their work was <i>pro bono</i>, but let us not be so quick to crucify them. After all, how many solos would be able to put up 20,000 hours of billable hours on a case they might never see a nickel from? Yes, of course, claiming that the work was pro bono and then submitting a bill for $9 million is absolutely absurd. That having been said, in my opinion, so are mandatory pro bono requirements.
This story is all over the blawgosphere, and it seems to me that people are more upset about the $9 million figure than they are about the absurdity of the claim that it was pro bono work. Even if the claim had never been made, I suspect that people would be lashing out at the bill amount anyway.
Put into context, however, is a $9 million bill on a $300 million award really all that absurd? If it wasn’t for biglaw responding to the defendant’s “tennis balls” with cannon fire, would the plaintiffs have been able to settle for such a large sum?
I hate to defend biglaw, and I would like to see them retract the assertion that their work was pro bono, but let us not be so quick to crucify them. After all, how many solos would be able to put up 20,000 hours of billable hours on a case they might never see a nickel from?

]]>