Designing a fee arrangement that yields or leads to greater value for the client has proven to be a daunting task for many in-house and outside attorneys. Some of the usual types of alternative fee arrangements that come to mind, such as fixed fees, fees with a premium, blended hourly rates and others, may yield greater value in some circumstances but less value in others. For that reason (and others, I’m sure), in-house lawyers have been slow to apply those types of arrangements too quickly or broadly.
Focusing more specifically on subsidiary elements of value as perceived by the client would enable the lawyers to approach the design task more confidently and more meaningfully. Moreover, fee arrangements so designed would lend themselves much more readily to measurement and comparison because they would rest upon discrete, idenfiable achievement of those more-specific value-related qualities (VRQs).
Designing a fee arrangement that yields or leads to greater value for the client has proven to be a daunting task for many in-house and outside attorneys. Some of the usual types of alternative fee arrangements that come to mind, such as fixed fees, fees with a premium, blended hourly rates and others, may yield greater value in some circumstances but less value in others. For that reason (and others, I’m sure), in-house lawyers have been slow to apply those types of arrangements too quickly or broadly.
Focusing more specifically on subsidiary elements of value as perceived by the client would enable the lawyers to approach the design task more confidently and more meaningfully. Moreover, fee arrangements so designed would lend themselves much more readily to measurement and comparison because they would rest upon discrete, idenfiable achievement of those more-specific value-related qualities (VRQs).
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.