For transactional clients with more than a few hours' needs every month, I cannot recommend flat-fee billing strongly enough, especially for clients with whom you've an established relationship.
The main benefit of this approach in my practice has been enabling me to do work that benefits multiple clients, and even current and potential future clients, without hesitation or administrative cost. There's no need to decide that one of five hours on a form goes to this client, two of five to that one, and one gets written off, as representing future clients who will need the same form, and so on.
Not tracking time has also been a net savings, though I recommend continuing to track tasks performed, journal-style. A journal helps me personally, makes it very easy to prepare good looking bills, and helps greatly in discussions about rate, which my engagement letter allows us to change, for future months, at any time. If I underestimate on rate, I can point to a long list of things accomplished. Often, the decision maker at the client simply didn't know that I was serving other groups at the company, or taking on other responsibilities, outside their field of view.
The main concern from other counsel has been that clients will gorge at the new "all you can eat lawyer buffet". If a client makes use of your time in a very piece-part, transactional fashion, that may indeed be a problem. But that has not been my experience. Clients have processes and habits in place for my work and seeking my advice. They're very hard to break, for better and worse. I do get far more communication from client personnel, but that has enabled me to be more proactive about systematizing and standardizing recurring needs, which in turn keeps me focused on the interesting, meaningful work.
That being said, I remain deeply cynical about whiz-bang technology in legal practice, especially when it's visible to the client, especially when it takes center stage. The less my clients know or care about the tools I'm using, the better I'm able to shield them from those details, the better the sign that I'm doing high-value work.
The main benefit of this approach in my practice has been enabling me to do work that benefits multiple clients, and even current and potential future clients, without hesitation or administrative cost. There's no need to decide that one of five hours on a form goes to this client, two of five to that one, and one gets written off, as representing future clients who will need the same form, and so on.
Not tracking time has also been a net savings, though I recommend continuing to track tasks performed, journal-style. A journal helps me personally, makes it very easy to prepare good looking bills, and helps greatly in discussions about rate, which my engagement letter allows us to change, for future months, at any time. If I underestimate on rate, I can point to a long list of things accomplished. Often, the decision maker at the client simply didn't know that I was serving other groups at the company, or taking on other responsibilities, outside their field of view.
The main concern from other counsel has been that clients will gorge at the new "all you can eat lawyer buffet". If a client makes use of your time in a very piece-part, transactional fashion, that may indeed be a problem. But that has not been my experience. Clients have processes and habits in place for my work and seeking my advice. They're very hard to break, for better and worse. I do get far more communication from client personnel, but that has enabled me to be more proactive about systematizing and standardizing recurring needs, which in turn keeps me focused on the interesting, meaningful work.
That being said, I remain deeply cynical about whiz-bang technology in legal practice, especially when it's visible to the client, especially when it takes center stage. The less my clients know or care about the tools I'm using, the better I'm able to shield them from those details, the better the sign that I'm doing high-value work.