Iain Sheridan proposes a brave alternative to the hourly billing system
Recent press articles have high-lighted increasing concern that hourly billing is an imperfect means of paying lawyers. In-house lawyers are often aware of a mismatch between the completion of important work to a high professional standard at hourly rates that are sometimes fully justified, but on other occasions spread discontent. The issue is a sensitive one, because hourly billing is so deeply entrenched in the culture of many law firms. From the stance of law firms, whether advising, drafting, or litigating, they often feel annoyed by accusations that they don't always provide value for money, when all they remember is working late, often to unreasonable deadlines. So there are two diverging interests and therefore any reform requires as much input from billing lawyers as from the clients.
Currently most law firms are offering alternatives to hourly rates, most commonly fixed fee arrangements. However, most alternative arrangements are offered as
-maryam-naaz-theo-corbett-and-rachel-carter-with-(front-from-left)-arya-vindlacheruvu-and-jessica-ashcroft.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=47f89300_1)
