http://tropophilia.com/2009/10/17/rebooting-justice/ the love of change Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:56:47 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 http://tropophilia.com/2009/10/17/rebooting-justice/#comment-2266 Jarred Taylor Mon, 19 Oct 2009 22:11:43 +0000 http://tropophilia.com/?p=1219#comment-2266 Thanks Tracy, great insight. Thanks Tracy, great insight.

]]> http://tropophilia.com/2009/10/17/rebooting-justice/#comment-2265 Tracy Mon, 19 Oct 2009 20:08:06 +0000 http://tropophilia.com/?p=1219#comment-2265 As a formerly practicing attorney, I'll add this note about the billable hour... If attorneys moved toward a results-based billing method (as described in the article) rather than the billable hour method, they would not only give clients more predictable bills, but could reduce the very significant administrative costs associated with billing (which include attorney's time to write down time spent on a particular matter; assistants' or attorneys' time to make sure it gets tracked or coded correctly; accounting staff's time to generate bills; attorneys' time to review (and often discount) the bills; more accounting staff time spent to correct and generate new bills; and time spent with the client explaining or further adjusting the bills). Most attorneys I know would tell you that this would significantly improve their job satisfaction as well. It's harder than you might think to keep track of your day in 6 minute increments, and it distracts from the job at hand - providing value for your clients. More importantly, I think it would lead to a higher level of client satisfaction. I think it's normal for a client to look at a bill and second guess "why did you need to spend .7 of an hour doing research here?" or "why did you have to talk to opposing counsel three times that day?" or "what was this 'conference' about?" On the other hand, when the attorney and the client focus not on activities but results, I think a client who has just closed a business deal or bought a home or settled a case or received HR advice would more often look at a legal bill (even a high one) and say "I feel like I got good value from the service provided and my attorney did a competent, efficient job." As a formerly practicing attorney, I'll add this note about the billable hour… If attorneys moved toward a results-based billing method (as described in the article) rather than the billable hour method, they would not only give clients more predictable bills, but could reduce the very significant administrative costs associated with billing (which include attorney's time to write down time spent on a particular matter; assistants' or attorneys' time to make sure it gets tracked or coded correctly; accounting staff's time to generate bills; attorneys' time to review (and often discount) the bills; more accounting staff time spent to correct and generate new bills; and time spent with the client explaining or further adjusting the bills). Most attorneys I know would tell you that this would significantly improve their job satisfaction as well. It's harder than you might think to keep track of your day in 6 minute increments, and it distracts from the job at hand – providing value for your clients. More importantly, I think it would lead to a higher level of client satisfaction. I think it's normal for a client to look at a bill and second guess “why did you need to spend .7 of an hour doing research here?” or “why did you have to talk to opposing counsel three times that day?” or “what was this 'conference' about?” On the other hand, when the attorney and the client focus not on activities but results, I think a client who has just closed a business deal or bought a home or settled a case or received HR advice would more often look at a legal bill (even a high one) and say “I feel like I got good value from the service provided and my attorney did a competent, efficient job.”

]]> http://tropophilia.com/2009/10/17/rebooting-justice/#comment-2209 Jarred Taylor Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:11:43 +0000 http://tropophilia.com/?p=1219#comment-2209 Thanks Tracy, great insight. Thanks Tracy, great insight.

]]> http://tropophilia.com/2009/10/17/rebooting-justice/#comment-2208 Tracy Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:08:06 +0000 http://tropophilia.com/?p=1219#comment-2208 As a formerly practicing attorney, I'll add this note about the billable hour... If attorneys moved toward a results-based billing method (as described in the article) rather than the billable hour method, they would not only give clients more predictable bills, but could reduce the very significant administrative costs associated with billing (which include attorney's time to write down time spent on a particular matter; assistants' or attorneys' time to make sure it gets tracked or coded correctly; accounting staff's time to generate bills; attorneys' time to review (and often discount) the bills; more accounting staff time spent to correct and generate new bills; and time spent with the client explaining or further adjusting the bills). Most attorneys I know would tell you that this would significantly improve their job satisfaction as well. It's harder than you might think to keep track of your day in 6 minute increments, and it distracts from the job at hand - providing value for your clients. More importantly, I think it would lead to a higher level of client satisfaction. I think it's normal for a client to look at a bill and second guess "why did you need to spend .7 of an hour doing research here?" or "why did you have to talk to opposing counsel three times that day?" or "what was this 'conference' about?" On the other hand, when the attorney and the client focus not on activities but results, I think a client who has just closed a business deal or bought a home or settled a case or received HR advice would more often look at a legal bill (even a high one) and say "I feel like I got good value from the service provided and my attorney did a competent, efficient job." As a formerly practicing attorney, I'll add this note about the billable hour… If attorneys moved toward a results-based billing method (as described in the article) rather than the billable hour method, they would not only give clients more predictable bills, but could reduce the very significant administrative costs associated with billing (which include attorney's time to write down time spent on a particular matter; assistants' or attorneys' time to make sure it gets tracked or coded correctly; accounting staff's time to generate bills; attorneys' time to review (and often discount) the bills; more accounting staff time spent to correct and generate new bills; and time spent with the client explaining or further adjusting the bills). Most attorneys I know would tell you that this would significantly improve their job satisfaction as well. It's harder than you might think to keep track of your day in 6 minute increments, and it distracts from the job at hand – providing value for your clients. More importantly, I think it would lead to a higher level of client satisfaction. I think it's normal for a client to look at a bill and second guess “why did you need to spend .7 of an hour doing research here?” or “why did you have to talk to opposing counsel three times that day?” or “what was this 'conference' about?” On the other hand, when the attorney and the client focus not on activities but results, I think a client who has just closed a business deal or bought a home or settled a case or received HR advice would more often look at a legal bill (even a high one) and say “I feel like I got good value from the service provided and my attorney did a competent, efficient job.”

]]>