Opinion: Billable Hours Strain Relationships. There’s a Fix

Read more from SMB Law Group LLP's Kevin Henderson and Eric B. Pacifici here.

Lawyers, how many times has a client asked you to “hurry up” a case, or “cut the small talk”? For many of us, it’s become commonplace for clients to get anxious about the amount of billable hours we’re spending on their case.

While this anxiety from clients certainly isn’t new, it’s a sentiment that’s growing, in part because of a constraining economy. Clients may be feeling less confident in their finances, while, at the same time, most firms are raising their hourly rates. Firms were expected to raise hourly billing rates by 8% in 2023, coping with the impacts of hiring booms, inflation, and more.

While these increases may be necessary to maintain profitability, this model is proving harmful to both parties. The more that clients feel like they’re paying per hour, the more concerned they’ll be about how lawyers are spending time on their matters. This only mounts the immense pressure that lawyers are feeling, which can put a serious strain on the lawyer-client relationship.

The truth is that hourly billing just isn’t cutting it anymore. That’s why firms should consider switching to a different model with more advantages: fixed-fee billing.

The text above does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law and Bloomberg Tax, or its owners.

Want to write for us? See our Author Guidelines.

Diversity Program Opponents Turn to Civil War-Era Law in Court

Several suits filed on behalf of White workers following the US Supreme Court’s decision outlawing affirmative action in higher education are banking on a Civil War-era statute guaranteeing equal rights to Black Americans to challenge the legality of corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion policies.

The discrimination cases have been filed in recent weeks under Section 1981 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, rather than the more traditional route, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. They include lawsuits filed against Morgan Stanley , Perkins Coie and Morrison Foerster .

Use of Section 1981 for discrimination claims allows the plaintiffs to proceed more efficiently, as they can skip first filing charges with state or federal civil rights agencies. But the mostly male and White plaintiffs in these suits will face obstacles to bringing their bias claims under the statute when it comes to proving standing and meeting burdens of proof, employment attorneys said.

“They are trying to circumvent all the administrative procedures required under Title VII and just go for the juggernaut by using Section 1981,” said American University law professor Susan D. Carle.

WilmerHale’s Waxman to Advise ABA's Task Force on AI

The American Bar Association is digging into an issue on law leaders’ minds—the rise of generative AI such as ChatGPT and how firms will adapt.

The ABA has formed the Task Force on Law and Artificial Intelligence, which will focus on six main issues, including AI and the legal profession, challenges involving generative AI programs such as ChatGPT, and AI in legal education.

For law firms, “ethical issues seem to be top of mind, especially given that client information can be put at risk” by erroneous statements from these programs, said Lucy L. Thomson, Esq. CISSP , founding principal at Livingston Pllc who leads the panel.

The panel includes former Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff and former US solicitor general Seth Waxman, who is currently co-chair of WilmerHale ’s appellate and Supreme Court litigation practice. Michelle Lee, former undersecretary of commerce for IP and director of the US Patent and Trademark Office, will also be an adviser.

The ABA will present the task force’s final report at the association’s next annual meeting in Chicago in about 11 months.

Thanks for reading this week’s edition of Inside Big Law. Want the biggest stories daily? Subscribe to our Business & Practice newsletter.