“𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘦 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘳, 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴. 𝘠𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘶𝘴𝘦.”
– Seth Godin (Kinds of Value)
𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗯𝘂𝘆:
• Experience
• Understanding | Empathy
• Risk Mitigation & Reduction
• Responsiveness
• Decision Making
—–
Get in touch 📩 if you want to have a chat about building a sustainable 🌱 and profitable 💰 practice
A recent report, “Strategic Sector Insights for the Legal Profession 2025: Mid-Sized Firms”, published by The Law Society and MHA, reveals a striking trend:
👉 More than 50% of mid-sized law firms report that their lawyers bill less than 25 hours per week on average.
👉 Less than 3% of lawyers at these firms bill anywhere close to the full 40-hour workweek.
While it’s unrealistic to expect lawyers to bill every hour they work, these numbers highlight why alternative pricing models are a key priority for firm leaders in 2025.
⚖️ What does the future of legal pricing look like? If you’re exploring value-based pricing, subscription models, or hybrid fee structures, let’s talk!
📩 DM me to discuss innovative pricing strategies for law firms.
I put a post up last week on LinkedIn, off the back of a very interesting blog by Jordan Furlong on his Substack feed: ‘The legal world in 10 years (if we’re really lucky)‘, that got some social media traction so I thought I would re-share here.
At the heart of my LinkedIn post was a comment Jordan makes on – what he calls – High-Value Retainers and the effect Gen AI will have on these fee arrangements. To quote:
High-Value Retainers
Thanks to Gen AI’s consumption of many traditional tasks, lawyers have moved up the value ladder, going beyond “bet-the-company” and “run-the-company” work to start offering “grow-the-company” work (or “advance-the-individual”). These are engagements in which lawyers ask: “How can I improve your situation? What are your near-term and long-term goals? How can I help you anticipate problems and prevent them before they happen? How can I bring you more stability and peace of mind? How can I be your advocate and counsellor in whatever you need?”
While I think Jordan’s point is an excellent one, mine was this: “Do you think this could work in 10 years time?“
Because if you think it could: Why are you waiting 10 years for AI to develop in order to have this conversation – have this conversation with your clients now!
In that, it’s not a 10+ years from now discussion. It’s not a 10+ years from now problem. It’s a HERE AND NOW problem and a here and now discussion.
In the 1980s it took Concord a little under 3 hours to fly New York to London.
Today [2023], 40 years later, the quickest you can travel that exact same route (New York City – London) is a little over 5 hours.
…And this is why you should always bill by the hour – it ensures your clients get the best possible experience (after all, why would you want to fly Concord!) and it incentives innovation!
Photo credit to Nick Fewings
This week’s #tbt (Throwback Thursday) recommendation is a post I wrote back in August of 2018 – ‘Why most law firms don’t need to hire a head of pricing‘.
The reason I’d like to suggest that you go back in time and read an article I wrote back in 2018 is because of something I read on law.com earlier this week: ‘How Law Firms Are Still Losing Millions, Even After Hiring Pricing Specialists‘ by Andrew Malocussion.
If you don’t have time to read Andrew Malocussions article, and I suggest you do because it’s actually very interesting, the long and short of it is that the reason why big (read global) law firms are losing millions in revenue (opportunity) is because…
… their pricing teams are too small.
All I have to say is, “seriously”!
Do yourself a favour, go back in time 5 years and work out for yourself whether or not the fact that law firm pricing teams are too small is the real reason they may or may not be losing millions of dollars in revenue.
For my part, this type of thinking doesn’t pass the pub test!
Feel free to reach out to me if you want to talk through any pricing strategy related issues/questions.
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:
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:
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.
Leaving aside the whole issue of whether or nor the billable hour is the best way to charge clients, do you think it is fair to charge different client different rates for the same work?
This article by Jordan Rothman on abovethelaw.com would suggest the answer to that question is – ‘yes’.
And I actually don’t disagree with Jordan’s outcome, but do disagree with his thinking of why.
After all, at least here in Australia, we very rarely have the same panel rate for all legal panels we are appointed to so; despite, or rather, the fact that we will be doing similar work under the various panel appointments.
QED – IMO – it’s fair to charge different clients different rates for the same work we do (and, HINT, it all comes out in the wash when you look at the Average Realised Rate – but I will leave that for another post).
But, and here is the critical difference I have with Jordan’s post, different clients will equate a different value to the work being done by you – and so it is more than fair to charge one client more or less than another client perceived on the value of the service they are getting.
For example, and I accept this is somewhat crude, somebody who has never been divorced before and whom your firm ‘looks after’ in a very emotional period of their life is way more likely to value the service your firm provides than someone going through their fifth divorce – so charge them more!
If you want to have a chat about how you can maximise your value opportunities, feel free to reach out.
“As of April 03, 2023, the subscription fee for Microsoft 365 Family will change from AUD 129 to AUD 139 to address changing market conditions.”
Microsoft email notification 19 March 2023
Okay, not a huge increase. But:
Other than to say: “if you don’t like this increase, here is a link to unsubscribe”, absolutely nothing.
My take:
TIP
If, like me, you got this email can I suggest you file this away as an example of how NOT to communicate a price increase to your clients/customers.
And if you need help talking through how you might be able to do a much better job than Microsoft have in communicating price increases to your loyal clients, feel free to reach out:
Photo credit: Ross Findon on Unsplash
RWS_01's B[D]log 