We both have no issue speaking our mind and so we will inevitably butt heads sooner or later. I have no problem admitting that I’m a stubborn sonofagun. When I say that hourly billing may be wrong or somehow imply that it is unethical, that is strictly from my own point of view. I don’t proclaim to judge anyone else in life and so I should choose my words more carefully I suppose.

As I have said, you go ahead and bill the way you want, how you want and when you want to do it.

I am not quite sure what it is that gets your goat when I express my views about these ideas. I have my opinions as you have yours. I think it is helpful to readers to hear (or read rather) both of our views on the subject.

By the way, I do not thing it is impossible to imagine a lawyer that does not prefer to charge hourly. I have stated repeatedly that I have done it, I know people that do it successful, and that it is appropriate in a lot of different settings. I guess I just burst your bubble by not agreeing with you in every instance? Not sure. I have had some disagreement with you over your characterizations, and have said so, but I have not taken them too personally. Well, maybe except for the socialist remark, but then I thought you were probably employing your talent of hyperbole. But, here again, you say that hourly billing is “wrong”. Well, that means that people who employ it are wrong. You have indicated that it is not ethical. That would indicate to those that use it that we are unethical for employing it.

I guess, maybe, I have done a bit of the same here as well. So, I will give this subject a rest. Because in the final analysis, no matter what our disagreement on the subject, you know I’m proud of you passing the bar, starting a practice, and I wish you nothing but the best. It takes a lot for someone to get into law school, get through it, pass the bar and then get a firm off the ground, and I applaud you for it. I am just saying I would rather talk to you about that subject than fees.

Is it really fair to assume that value pricing is always about marketing? Is it impossible to imagine that there is a lawyer out there who simply thinks hourly billing is wrong?

Oh, and there are ways to incorporate value billing INTO hourly billing (see Valorem Law Group’s “Value Adjustment Line” as one example). There are also these neat little things called “change orders” that negate the “decapitation” aspect of any system that involves up-front pricing.

My concern is not for the so-called concept of “value billing”, in whatever form that takes. Attorneys have a right, generally, to enter into any financial arrangement or terms they both believe works for them. My concern is the marketing ploy of the thing. The very terminology is used as the first bullet point for why a client should hire you over someone else. By default then, it becomes the only marketing ploy of new attorneys that do not have any other credentials to speak of that are not law school related.

That is advertising based upon fees, just like or no better than some lawyer that advertises uncontested divorces for $250.00. We know what kind of clients that kind of lawyer gets, and we know, if such lawyers are truthful, how impossible it is to make a living off $250.00 total fees.

So, a new attorneys do not want to appear this way, and they latch on to these new marketed terms people throw out, like “value billing”. It does have a new twist to it, but make no mistake the new attorneys are competing by marketing and cost competing on fees, instead of concentrating on how the legal services he or she provides can benefit potential clients. Denying it is just denying it to themselves because they do not want to hear it.

I generally do not think it hurts to market that the initial interview is free to allow both parties to determine the worth of each other with some comfort, but to say that “value billing” is not cost competing is not accurate.

My point is that attorneys that get fooled into competing on price in their upfront marketing will regret it. New attorneys already have a natural tendency to charge too little for services, convincing themselves it is the cost of breaking in. But, where does it stop? It generally does not stop. Then five or six years from now, as they are still squeaking by, they bemoan how piss poor they are, how the legal profession has not worked out for them, and seeking a solution.

Well, before the solution, which will then disrupt their practice, it is good to know the cause. The cause is price marketing in any form or any fashion. A few, and mind you it is just a few, will have the opposite effect of more often than not ripping people off for the work they do compared to the “value” billing” or “value pricing” they charged for that work. Either way it is not good.

I have nothing to gain in telling new attorneys this. I am not one of the gurus trying to make a buck of the concept. It is simply my unvarnished opinion based on my years of practice. They can take it or leave it. But, my druthers is that they spend less time playing around with this stuff starting out, and more time thinking of how to get paying clients (paying in whatever form) based on the services they provide.

Too often new lawyers want a quick and easy solution to obtaining clients. That is what this is about, and we need not make any mistake about it. In the long run, however, it is best to build a practice the old fashion way of getting out, meeting and greeting, and telling the world how your niche or practice area can help those in need. And, stay off the price or billing issue.

Where did I say that there was only one ethical way to bill? I brought up the concept of reasonableness merely to note its vague nature which actually implies that there can be an entire range of fee amounts that are reasonable in any given situation. And since reasonableness is only applied to the final amount, how you get to that amount is an entirely different story.

I have absolutely no idea how my assertion that some lawyers (in some situations) are constrained by the courts and have no choice but to use lodestar can be categorized as hyperbolic. It’s simply the truth. Perhaps what seems hyperbolic to you others view as merely a lack of denial about the truth.

Anyway. Like I said this whole thing has been blown out of proportion. As you said, this isn’t even the most important aspect of practicing law. Enjoy the holidays my friend and I hope all’s well with you and your fam!

As to the other, I believe you said, “I think of pricing less as a marketing tool than as an ethical obligation”. The way I take took this, and I think it is correct, is that the so-called “value” pricing or billing is the ethical think to do. That would necessarily mean that Lodestar is not.

You might not have specified what fees ae reasonable and what fees are not reasonable, but you interjected the argument of reasonableness in your argument against Lodestar. You did it as a point of differentiation. This would assume, and I think you meant, that you do not believe that Lodestar is basically ethical or reasonable. First, you brought it up as the bases of your argument. Second, if Lodestar in your mind were reasonable and ethical, there would be no reason to have this discussion as Lodestar would be the right system to use for the exact reason that it is reasonable and ethical and that is the standard you applied.

As to the second point, I think in a litigation context, I think that Lodestar is the most ethical and reasonable solution. If a matter takes a hour, the client is charged only an hour. If it settles quickly the client gets the benefit. If it does not, the lawyer is not financing the fight. Once the lawyer is invested in the fight, then the lawyer loses his or her objectivity.

But, can you see what is happening here, Wes. I take your own words and put them in a different or opposite context in which you used them to establish a point. It is, I must admit, pretty good lawyering. That is what I get paid for — by the hour.

I am not really that opposed to what you are saying. If you are doing a real estate transaction, do fixed fee. If you are doing a will, do fixed fee. I do not think it works in single shot litigation, and if that is your route, I hope you do not follow it on a fixed fee basis. I also, think there are other priorities in the practice of law starting out other than the degree of attention on this issue. I also think it is too prone to salesmanship by those wanting to make money off the cause. Like my cause of not, enjoy my position or not, like my style of argument or not, want to follow it or not, rest assured I am not trying to make a dime for it or off of it. It is gratis to you, with no strings attached. I am more concerned for you and your burgeoning practice. I am happy you have allowed me the input in this regard and for his reason.

I hope all is well for you and yours, I wish you the best in your new practice, and my hope is that you have a wonderful holiday season, Wes.

Peace.