Two things got my attention on Friday. The first was the decision by the UK to exit the EU (so-called “independence Day” by some of the more fanciful politicians and “Brexit” to most of the rest of us). On a much smaller scale, the second was an article in The Australia Financial Review that “Ditching the billable hours case a struggle“. (print edition – NB: online the article title is “Billable hours to always hold a place in law firms“).
With the first of these two items, I have very little to no control over and am left at the mercy of others.
The second on the other hand is absolute rubbish!
To be clear, mention of the billable hour in the opening four (4) paragraphs of this article are all to internal metrics; specifically how many hours fee earners need to bill each day to make budget (and a side note here, anyone else note how this changed from an annual figure of 1,400 hours to a daily figure of between 6 and 7.5 hours depending on which firm you work for? Is this because a daily figure is much easier to live with than an annual figure that daunts you by its task? If so, kind of simplistic thinking towards people who are supposed to be in the top 1%).
Anyhow I digress as this has nothing to do whatsoever with how clients are charged, much less how they want to be charged, and whether or not the billable hour needs to remain the “go to” fee arrangement of choice by firms and paragraph five (5) of the article tackles this issue head on when it says:
“However, the majority of firms said they worked with clients and offered alternative fee arrangements if suitable.”
You’re kidding right?
For those of you who have not seen it lately, here is the Thomson Reuters Peer Monitor ‘Chart of Billed and Collected Realization Against Standard‘ for the period 2005 to 2015:
That squiggly little line in free-fall tells you realization rates have fallen from roughly 93 cents in the dollar in 2005 to just over 83 cents in the dollar in late 2015. It also tells me that you are not doing a very good job if you are working with your clients vis-a-vis how you charge them for the work you do and it puts to rest any attempt to suggest that billable hours are the preferred method of clients to be billed (unless, that is, you’re suggesting that clients know they can get discounts, or just not pay, bills that accrue on an hourly basis).
So over the weekend I got to think: like the article says, pretty much all of the reasons why the billable hour continues to be a struggle to ditch are down to internal measurement metrics. So, maybe, just maybe, like the UK did on Friday, it’s time for Australian law firms to opt out of the known and disruptive itself – and maybe the rest of the world with it!
Good post Richard.You are much more diplomatic than I. Oldlaw pretending to do/be/copy/imitate Newlaw won’t work.Its a vicious cycle.While firms retain the Oldlaw model mindset of leveraging people x time x hourly rate perpetuating this by their internal measurements and rewards,this will continue to be reflected in what they externally offer to their clients. Thanks goodness more and more firms making a paradigm shift and they and their clients are the beneficiaries.
John JOHN CHISHOLM B.Juris LLB. email@example.com http://www.chisconsult.com 0419763391 @ChisConsult
Influencing motivated professionals to make a difference
Thanks for the kind words John. It’s amazing what we can convince ourselves of some times, but I’m amazed how we stick to something that is clearly losing us money