Like Chris Marston of Inside the Future of the Law Firm who raves about the benefits of fixed pricing, I’m also a fan of the flat fee or fixed price. Chris focuses on how fixed pricing provides certainty to clients, but from my perspective, it makes my life much easier when I don’t have to send out piddly monthly invoices for 2.55 hours of work.
Chris notes that most lawyers’ opposition to fixed billing comes from concerns that they’ll underestimate costs and lose money on the case. In response, Chris argues that lawyers ought to think about a budget before signing clients on and if they do that, the fixed price model should work. And, as John Toothman, a lawyer and legal fee management consultant writes, it’s not any more difficult for lawyers to estimate fees than construction contractors:
Compared with this array of uncertainties [that contractors face], the cost of most legal
projects is much easier to estimate ever hear of a will being rained
out? In litigation or negotiation, where adversaries or judges can
disrupt one side’s plans, there are still plenty of ways to estimate
the likelihood of such disruptions and to plan with their likely impact
in mind. Lawyers’ excuses that they have no way to predict what will
happen indicate that they are either inexperienced or evasive. If all
else fails, the lawyer can at least disclose how much similar cases
have cost. This creates a dilemma for the law firm: Do they disclose
just how expensive all those cases were or do they try to distinguish
all of them as being different, thereby proving that they have no
relevant experience?
Where I do take issue with Chris and other proponents of fixed billing
is on the question of who bears the burden when a lawyer underestimates
the fee, or where a case takes longer than expected. Chris and many
other proponents of flat fees seem to think that the client ought to
pay the overage. But I disagree. When I give a flat fee estimate, I
will eat the cost unless the extra work is caused by the client (e.g.,
client lies about material issues in the case) or created by unforseen
events (e.g., change in a 50 year precedent that leads to multiple
appeals). My feeling is that as the attorney, I am the expert on
estimating fees, so I should bear the risk of an inaccurate estimate.
Giving flat fee estimates and then charging clients for extra work puts
all of the risk of the inaccurate estimate on clients. Maybe that’s
what’s considered good business for lawyers, but I just don’t think
it’s fair.
Related posts:
- Make More With Flat Fees
- Your Realization Rates May Make You Realize That Flat Fees Often Make More “Cents”
- Some Open Questions for Flat Fee Aficionados and Ethics Gurus
- Why Is the Illinois Bar Advising Lawyers to Look Stupid By Admitting That They Can’t Estimate Fees?
- Billing Alternatives For Solos











