200 likes | 342 Views
Alternative Fee Arrangements. ACC CLE Program by Alston & Bird LLP Dallas – February 19, 2009 Fort Worth – February 26, 2009. Panel. Dallas Panelists Michael Colvin, Highland Capital Management Stanton P. Eigenbrodt, Behringer Harvard Funds Jonathan Perkel, Travelocity
E N D
Alternative Fee Arrangements ACC CLE Program by Alston & Bird LLP Dallas – February 19, 2009 Fort Worth – February 26, 2009
Panel • Dallas Panelists • Michael Colvin, Highland Capital Management • Stanton P. Eigenbrodt, Behringer Harvard Funds • Jonathan Perkel, Travelocity • Jill Witter, Novation • Fort Worth Panelists • Howard Herndon, First American Payment Systems, L.P. • Roger Nober, BNSF Railway Company • Bob Robinson, BancTec, Inc. • Elaine Whitbeck, Alcon Laboratories, Inc.
Panel • Alston & Bird Attendees • Gustav Bahn • John Crews • Darren Hauck • Jon Shepherd • Alan Struble
Overview • Why consider alternatives? • What are acceptable alternatives for you and your law firm? • Are there issues under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct (“Rules”)?
What’s wrong with the billable hour? • Mark Chandler (Cisco SVP/GC) speech from 2007 - “State of Technology in the Law” • “Put most bluntly, the most fundamental misalignment of interests is between clients who are driven to manage expenses, and law firms which are compensated by the hour.” • “Today there is little incentive for law firms to apply risk-reward logic to the amount of legal services provided. And General Counsel know that.”
Step 1 – Collect Information • Are you getting value? • Consider – • What legal services do we need? • What is my budget and do other budgets come into play? • How do we control our spending? What are our objectives? • Do we track our spend? How?
A bird in hand . . . • While far from perfect, the billable hour system may still work depending on your circumstances • Are you meeting internal expectations? • At least for now . . . • Fixed blended or discounted rates (when available) initially reduce costs • But still rely on billable hours as the sole measure of law firm value delivered
Step 2 – Engage • Be candid with your law firm • State objectives • When feasible, give budget numbers • Be open to dialogue • Firms have volume of work necessary to change model • But both parties must adjust to new ways of thinking • Explore new business processes
Step 3 - Options • Contingency engagements • Sliding rates dependent on success • Fixed fees • Entire projects • Per phase • Entire portfolios/budgets • Mix and match
Contingency Arrangements • The “old fashion” alternative arrangement • Consider type of claims • Rule 1.04(d): • “A fee may be contingent on the outcome of the matter for which the service is rendered . . . A contingent fee agreement shall be in writing and shall state the method by which the fee is to be determined.”
Sliding Rates/Work • Adjust law firm hourly rate recovery to reflect desired business outcome • M&A hourly fees might escalate up • Deep discount until Letter of Intent, modest discount until execution of agreement, and premium/top-up if deal closes • Litigation hourly fees might ramp down • Premiums for winning at motion to dismiss or summary judgment • Focus on value-added work
Fixed Fees • Entire projects • If there is a sufficient flow of matters, set a fixed price using your average outside counsel cost • Exclude outliers in calculating averages • Consider assumptions to establish upside and downside protections • Consider pre-set adjustments in price to align incentives • Usually assumes multiple projects which may be used to “balance” amounts charged per project
Fixed Fees • Types of matters • If project fixed fee pricing is not feasible, consider phased fixed fees • Flat fee per phase with potential for adjustments to align interests • Don’t have to use fixed fees across an entire project • Try to manage risks that most threaten your budget • Loss leader initial phase pricing
Entire Portfolios • Set annual fixed fee for an entire line item on your budget • Base on averages and/or allocated budget • Easier to manage across multiple years • Consider downside/upside protections or otherwise how to align interests
Mix and Match • Multiple work streams - for example - • Match award of low volume, big project work with high volume, commodity work • Aggressive fixed fee pricing on commodity work • More “market” based pricing on big projects
Rules • Rule 1.04(a): • “A lawyer shall not enter into an arrangement for, charge, or collect an illegal fee or unconscionable fee. A fee is unconscionable if a competent lawyer could not form a reasonable belief that the fee is reasonable.” • Comment #3 to Rule 1.04: • “Commonly employed are percentage fees and contingent fees (which may vary in accordance with the amount at stake or recovered), hourly rates, and flat fee arrangements, or combinations thereof.”
Rules • Rule 1.04(b) – factors when considering reasonableness: • “(1) the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; • (2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer; • (3) the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services; • (4) the amount involved and the results obtained; • (5) the time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances; • (6) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; • (7) the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the services; and • (8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent on results obtained or uncertainty of collection before the legal services have been rendered.”
Rules • If firm is proactive in dealing with alternative arrangements, then it is unlikely that any problems will be created • Document and communicate clearly • Be fair to both sides • Comment #6 to Rule 1.04: • “Once a fee arrangement is agreed to, a lawyer should not handle the matter so as to further the lawyers financial interests to the detriment of the client. For example, a lawyer should not abuse a fee arrangement based primarily on hourly charges by using wasteful procedures.”
Alternative Fee Arrangements ACC CLE Program by: Alston & Bird LLP 2200 Ross Avenue Suite 3601 Dallas, Texas 75201-2708 214-922-3400