Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

A Rational Basis for Setting Hourly Rates

By Ed Wesemann and Michael Roch
February 01, 2007

For the past 20 years, law firms have annually increased their hourly rates on the basis of various ad hoc criteria ' what the market will bear, matching the competition, cost-plus, maintaining profit margins ' that neither firm members nor clients find satisfactory. Alternative pricing methods (fixed fees, percentage of the deal, etc.) have long been advocated as a solution to hourly billing discontents, but in practice, for a large majority of firms they remain limited in application. Firms whose clients expect fees to be charged on an hourly rate basis therefore require a rational means of constructing an hourly rate schedule that is transparent and acceptable to clients as well as defensible within the firm.

Rate-Setting Factors

In the United States, the Model Code of Professional Responsibility (Rule 1.5) provides some assistance in establishing a basis for setting hourly billing rates. In setting a fee, lawyers are allowed to consider any of eight factors, including:

  • The time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the issues involved, and the skill required to perform the legal service properly;
  • The fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services; and
  • The experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the services.

Therefore, we can develop hourly billing rates that vary by the sophistication of the matter, by the reputation and capability of the specific lawyers involved, and by standards of the marketplace. The mechanics to develop such a system are relatively simple. Three sources of input are required: an empirical basis on which to make assumptions about the level of rates in the marketplace; a means of evaluating the capabilities and reputations of the firm's lawyers; and a system for measuring the comparative sophistication of client matters.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions Image

UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?