Category Archives: Client Relations and Development

There are essentially two schools of thought on whether lawyers should offer free consultations to prospective clients. On one side are the lawyers who argue that their time and advice is valuable and that a free consultation undermines that value. These lawyers tend to practice in areas in which the client will be looking for very specific advice in the initial consultation. Requiring payment for an initial consultation reinforces to the client that the lawyer expects to get paid for his or her services. Requiring payment before or at the outset of a consultation also cuts down on clients who schedule an appointment but never show up.

On the other side are the attorneys for whom free consultations are commonly offered in their practice areas. This is particularly true for contingent fee work, such as personal injury, workers compensation, and plaintiff’s employment law. Other high-competition practice areas, such as bankruptcy and criminal law, tend toward free consultations. In these areas the free consultations are a way of convincing the client to visit your office to meet with you, at which point you have the opportunity to “close the deal” and convince the client to sign a representation agreement.

As one might expect, regardless of the practice area, newer and less-busy lawyers tend to offer more free consultations. Although one may give away some value in answering a prospective client’s questions for free, the good will that is built with the prospective client may lead to the person hiring the lawyer or referring friends to the lawyer. Somewhat paradoxically, as lawyers become more successful, they tend to be less willing to give away their time.

There is much room for creativity around initial consultations. In my practice of representing lawyers, I offer up to 15 minutes of an initial consultation for free, except that if the conversation runs longer than 15 minutes, I charge a minimum fee of about half my hourly rate. That way I can encourage lawyers to call me with quick, straightforward questions but I still can get paid for the value of my experience and advice if the question is more complex.

To learn more about finding value in free consultations, click here

Finding Value in Free Consultations

By Eric Cooperstein on May 13, 2013

There are essentially two schools of thought on whether lawyers should offer free consultations to prospective clients. On one side are the lawyers who argue that their time[…]

Last week a lawyer wrote to me and asked if it was ethical to charge, in addition to a flat fee for representing a client in a matter, an additional “administrative fee” of $25 for copies, postage, and other costs that might be incurred in the matter. I see these types of fees occasionally in retainer agreements, whether they’re hourly or flat.

The ethical question is not hard: all fees and costs must be reasonable. That leaves a lot of leeway, although there is authority that says that charges for costs should be related to the lawyer’s actual costs and not be a profit center for the firm.

If it’s difficult or time consuming to track costs for a particular client, you could charge a reasonable administrative fee. I would first want to track the costs in various client matters to see how much those costs typically run. But if ten clients’ costs are $100 and ten clients’ costs are zero, I don’t think it is reasonable to charge every client $50.

The practice of charging a vague administrative fee reminds me of when I go to my auto mechanic and there are charges on my bill for parts, for labor (per hour, by the way), and “shop supplies.” When I ask what that item means, the response is usually a noncommittal “Oh, you know. Rags and stuff.” No, actually, I don’t know. Rags? Seriously, you’re charging me extra for rags?

If you don’t want to bill separately for costs, fold them in to the hourly rate or flat fee you charge the client. Let’s leave the charges for shop supplies to the mechanics.

Shop Supplies

By Eric Cooperstein on April 23, 2013

Last week a lawyer wrote to me and asked if it was ethical to charge, in addition to a flat fee for representing a client in a matter,[…]

We’ve been reviewing the four components that make up a lawyer’s brand: technical skills, client service, dynamic approach and personal qualities. Having a dynamic approach to your practice means that you look at it from a big picture, longer-term perspective. Instead of flatly moving from assignment to assignment doing what’s expected of you and nothing more, you stretch yourself each step of the way. You think through what the next steps of a project might be. It means you are a forward thinker about what’s going on in the legal industry, your particular practice and the industries of your clients.

Having a growth approach to how you practice not only benefits you in that it expands your skill set and your knowledge base, it makes you more competitive, more efficient , more versatile. In short, it enables you to add more value.

Here are some questions to ask to help you have a dynamic approach your practice:

1.) Save and Shave: If you’re working on an assignment that you’ve already done in the past, ask yourself how you can save time? Can you implement a precedent? Can you build on knowledge that you now have from the previous time? Then, challenge yourself to shave some time off how long it takes from the last time. Even if it’s just five minutes it will challenge you to be more efficient. Sometimes over-thinking and overworking is the enemy of value and quality. Just bringing this level of a strategic the strategic thinking to your assignment will add a layer of value that wasn’t there the last time. And, clients and supervisors always appreciate saving time and/or money.

2.) Past, Present and Future: Think about the clients you serve. The niche you may be in. The industry those clients are in. What was going on five years ago? What’s going on now? What is coming down the pike in five years? Think through what that might mean. How does that inform how you practice today? How does it inform how you might practice five years from now? How can you get out in front of that for yourself; for your practice group/organization; for your client’s? Are there articles or client alerts you should be writing? Are there checklists you can be developing to help your client with what might be coming? Are there presentations and lectures you should start delivering to establish you as an expert or thought leader.

3.) Lessons Learned: If you’ve drafted a document or done a particular assignment several times, sit down, take five minutes and think through what have you learned from the first time you did it to the last time. What do you know now that you didn’t know then? For example, what are the top five problems that could come up and merger agreement and how do you work around them?

4.) Style, Approach, Philosophy: Ask yourself the question: what style of lawyer am I? What’s my philosophy and approach to things? So for example, if you’re a litigator, are you a “dog with a bone” deposer? Do you leave no stone unturned when it comes to trail preparation? If you’re a corporate attorney, are you a “nice guy” s negotiator? Just being able to answer these questions or work them into a conversation with a client, whether internal or external, or a supervisor will send them a signal that you really think long, hard and strategically about not just “what” but “how” you’re practicing law.

A Positive Brand Takes More Than Just Showing Up

By Diane Costigan on April 17, 2013

We’ve been reviewing the four components that make up a lawyer’s brand: technical skills, client service, dynamic approach and personal qualities. Having a dynamic approach to your practice[…]

As many of you have probably heard, the pro bono landscape was dramatically, and permanently, changed on January 1, 2013 when new rules went into effect in New York State that require that most of the applicants for admission to the bar in New York must complete at least 50 hours of qualifying pro bono service prior to filing an admission for application for admission. These rules not only apply to graduates of New York law school but also to lawyers from other jurisdictions (including foreign lawyers) who want to practice law in New York and thus are seeking bar admission. Students in their first and second years of law school as of the effective date immediately became subject to the requirements and the requirements will apply to everyone who seeks admission to the New York bar on or after January 1, 2015. While Rule 6.1 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which urges lawyers to aspire to render at least 50 hours of pro bono public legal services each year, and state bar policies based thereon have long advocated pro bono service, the New York rule is the first one that makes such service mandatory. It is presumed that other states, such as California, Massachusetts and New Jersey, each of which are considering similar rules in a preliminary manner, will watch developments in New York closely as they play out over the next few years.

Law students and attorneys who become subject to the requirements will be given a broad range of opportunities to satisfy them as the New York rules define pro bono service to include work performed for people of limited means, not-for-profit organizations, and other individuals or groups seeking to promote access to justice. In order to qualify the work must be performed under the supervision of a law school faculty member, licensed attorney or judge and work by conducted under the auspices of law school legal clinics or governmental entities. Work need not be performed in New York and may be completed in any US state or territory, the District of Columbia or a foreign country. The Advisory Committee on New York State Pro Bono Bar Admission Requirements rightly pointed out that the new requirements will address the crisis in access to justice; however, the Committee also noted that the requirements are an opportunity for prospective attorneys to build valuable skills. Obviously law students and new lawyers interested in litigation can take advantage of the wide range of litigation-oriented pro bono programs that have been available for a number of years. Fledgling business attorneys may have to work harder to find a marriage between their passion and pro bono service but law schools and law firms will hopefully arrange opportunities to assist clients interested in setting up new businesses but lacking the resources to pay substantial fees to lawyers.

Pro bono requirements of this type should be viewed by you as an opportunity to gain needed experience that you can’t normally get in the law school classroom setting. If you are still in law school seek out faculty members and clinic coordinators and ask them about ways to get on-the-job training in counseling new businesses. If you are out of law school see what clinics are available in your community and find out if they need volunteers. Hopefully they’ll provide mentors to oversee your work. But, if not, you can start with the guidance and materials available on the Beyond the Bar video program covering Planning and Launching a New Business: A Comprehensive Checklist.

New Pro Bono Requirements Create Challenges and Opportunities for New Business Lawyers

By Alan Gutterman on April 10, 2013

As many of you have probably heard, the pro bono landscape was dramatically, and permanently, changed on January 1, 2013 when new rules went into effect in New[…]

The debate over the wisdom of the billable hour has once again come alive in the blawgosphere in the wake of the recent disclosure of indiscreet emails exchanged by DLA Piper lawyers and Steven Harper’s recent op-ed in the New York Times, “The Tyranny of the Billable Hour.”

Harper’s commentary very nearly gets it right. In a larger firm, billing by the hour tends to be abused because the associates and junior partners serve two masters: the client and the firm. The requirement to bill a certain number of hours per year, combined with the lack of discretion over what time is ultimately charged to the client, sometimes results in exorbitant bills to the clients.

But the problem is not that charging by the hour is inherently unethical or that an alternative fee arrangement is inherently fairer or more cost effective for the client. Time is a commodity. There are only so many working hours in a week. If you want a piece of my time, you pay for it. But as a sole practitioner, I have completely control over the fees I charge my clients. I am sensitive to the idea that clients do not want to be nickeled and dimed for every voicemail, email, and text message. So I write off, on average, about 10% to 20% of the time I spend on client matters. None of my clients complain that I bill by the hour.

Alternative fees certainly have their place. Both corporate and individual clients may like the certainty of a flat fee. As I point out in my presentation on alternative fees, however, flat fees may require the lawyer to take on a risk that is not present with hourly fees: the risk that the matter will take more time than the lawyer expected, perhaps because of facts the lawyer does not yet know. This is one reason why it is so difficult to implement flat fees for litigation- the course of the matter is unpredictable.

Nor are flat fees inherently more fair than hourly fees. Not too long ago I hired a plumber who would only quote me a flat fee for a rather small job. I was suspicious but I needed the work done. Sure enough, the job went quickly and I ended up paying more on an hourly basis than I charge my clients for legal work. And I felt ripped off and I will never hire that company again.

It’s not the billable hour that is bad; it’s the abuse of it that gives lawyers a bad name.

Time Matters

By Eric Cooperstein on April 9, 2013

The debate over the wisdom of the billable hour has once again come alive in the blawgosphere in the wake of the recent disclosure of indiscreet emails exchanged[…]