Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Lawyer or Laborer? Value Billing Helps Lawyers Convey the Worth, Not Just the Cost, of Their Services
Until well into the post-World War II era, legal fees were based not only on the time spent, but also on the nature of the service, the result achieved, and the amount at stake. Charging an appropriate legal fee was a matter of professional judgment. That changed in the mid-1960s when clients began demanding detailed billing statements, and lawyers used time records as a tool to provide them. Today, most lawyers are paid by the hour ' and both lawyers and clients take little satisfaction in the system.
For lawyers, hourly billing is a source of frustration and discontent. Often, when I coach attorneys who are dissatisfied in their practice, it's soon apparent that their real dissatisfaction is with measuring their days in six- or 10-minute increments and losing focus on the essence of their skills. The hourly billing concept makes them equivalent to a day laborer, sending out bills that are features lists: This is what I did, this is the time I worked, and this is what you owe me. That approach also breeds dissatisfaction among clients, because it doesn't address the benefits of what a lawyer does. All clients know is that the longer lawyers take, the more they make ' and they believe this dynamic is at odds with the client's best interest.
The simple fact is that lawyers don't really sell time; we sell a service. Our goal should be providing value: advice that means solutions to our clients. Hourly billing doesn't address value and benefits ' the worth, as opposed to the cost, of the service. The best model for our profession, and the best path to personal satisfaction in each lawyer's practice, is to get paid for the real value and expertise brought to the client. And that requires a new billing dynamic.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- 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
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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
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
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?
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
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?