The most recent – 2026 – Citi Hilderbrandt Client Advisory Survey Report published earlier this month contains some interesting commentary on how US law firms faired in 2025. None more so than the finding that:
a growing number of firms estimating that more than half their revenue will come from pre-negotiated discounts. (page 23)
Pre-negotiated discounts
The Report does not explicitly define “pre-negotiated discounts”; however it refers to alternative fee arrangements (AFAs) as including fixed, capped or blended rates. It is, therefore, reasonable to interpret “pre-negotiated discounts” as encompassing agreed reductions to standard charge-out rates, volume-based discounts and other upfront pricing concessions.
Viewed positively, this trend signals a shift away from reactive, end-of-matter discounting towards earlier and more deliberate pricing discussions. In principle, this should create a stronger foundation for meaningful conversations about value-based pricing, particularly where clients are seeking price certainty, predictability and risk sharing. From that perspective, pre-negotiated pricing is not inherently problematic — and may in fact represent a necessary transitional step.
The more concerning implication, however, is that for many firms these discussions appear to be anchored primarily in discounting, rather than in value definition. Where pricing conversations begin and end with rate reductions, firms risk reinforcing a price-taker mindset rather than asserting their role as price-setters. Left unchallenged, this dynamic contributes to margin erosion, commoditisation of legal services and an imbalance in client-firm relationships that becomes increasingly difficult to unwind.
AFAs as a pricing option
Despite persistent commentary throughout 2025 that artificial intelligence (ai) will fundamentally disrupt — or even eliminate — the billable hour, the data in this Report suggests otherwise. The proportion of revenue derived from AFAs has remained effectively flat, increasing only marginally from 23.5% in 2024 to a projected 23.6% in 2025.
Setting aside the fact that many commonly cited AFAs are, in reality, variations of the billable hour by another name, and acknowledging that it may still be too early to fully assess AI’s structural impact on pricing legal services, one conclusion is unavoidable: the billable hour remains very much alive.
The way forward
With 74% of firms expecting a growing proportion of revenue to come from AFAs by 2027, the issue is not whether pricing models will continue to evolve, but how deliberately firms choose to engage with that evolution; and whether AFAs are used as strategic tools or simply as discounted billing mechanisms.
In sum
Taken together, the findings in this Report further highlight a profession at an inflection point. While the billable hour continues to dominate, the steady rise of pre-negotiated discounts and the anticipated growth in AFAs suggest mounting client pressure for greater certainty, transparency and perceived value.
The critical question for law firms now is not whether they should offer alternative pricing arrangements, that horse has bolted, but whether they are prepared to move beyond discount-led negotiations and engage in genuine upfront value-based pricing conversations.
Firms that continue to compete primarily on price risk entrenching themselves as price-takers in an increasingly sophisticated procurement environment. Those that invest in articulating value, pricing outcomes and structuring risk intelligently will be far better positioned to protect margins and strengthen client relationships in the years ahead.
The decision on the way forward now rests with the firms themselves.
If you are wondering what types of Alternative Fees Arrangements (AFAs) in-house General Counsel are asking their private practice suppliers to provide them with – or, to flip the coin, what AFAs private practice lawyers are charging their in-house GCs, then wonder no longer. The latest market report from the Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC) sets this out in a nice clear table:
Some take-aways:
The #1 AFA fee request of outside counsel is Discounted Hourly Rates. No less than 100% of companies with revenue over $20BN or more use Discounted Hourly Rates with their private practice lawyers! When, oh when, will we learn that Discounted Hourly Rates are NOT a fee structure? On this point, I have been arguing for years (literally, the linked post was from 2018!) that there is no point having a pricing function in your law firm if all you are going to offer clients is discounted hourly rates! Seriously, save yourselves the money.
Say what you want, the #BillableHour is far, far from over if it is the preferred billing method of over three-quarters (77%) of all in-house GCs participants in the survey!
Capped fees are dumb! They are a lose-lose: both for the law firm who if they come under the cap can only charge what is on the clock and if they go over the cap have to wear the additional cost; but also for the in-house team who will get under served as soon as it becomes clear the cap cannot be met (and probably never was going to be). So why are they so prevalent? I can only assume capped fees are driven by the CFO wanting “cost certainty”.
Given the continued popularity of hourly rates, Blended Hourly Rates are nowhere near as popular (at 37%) as you would think. On transactional matters in particular, you would think this rate of use would be a lot higher.
The use of Success Fees is woeful. Is this a reflection of the amount of M&A and privatization work actually being done (where you would expect it to be prevalent, or is it an actual fact that in-house counsel don’t like/understand the benefits of this arrangement? Or could it be, every deal is getting done so why take the uplift risk?)?
An understanding of Performance Based Holdbacks has a long, long way to go.
Importantly though, despite talking about implementing AFAs for over two decades, we are still a long way off actually using them in practice.
Again, take a look at my linked article above where I talk to Patrick Johansen’s Continuum of Fee Arrangements™, where Patrick sets out 16 different types of fee arrangements that can be used:
Hourly
Volume
Blended
Retainer
Capped
Task
Flat
Phase
Fixed
Contingency
Portfolio
Hybrid
Holdback
Risk Collar
Success/Bonus
Value
And ask yourself, how many of these are being actively used in this latest report from the ACC?
Notably missing from the list above? Value Based Billing!
Yes, despite what you may read and hear elsewhere, in practice we are long, long way away from understanding and implementing the appropriate (a term I learned from Toby Brown) use of relevant fee arrangement for the task at hand.
In-house or private practice, if you’re struggling to get to grips with this issue, feel free to reach out to me for a chat.
RWS_01's B[D]log 