What will you do with billing rates for 2010? All Firms New York Washington, D.C. Chicago
Increase them by 5 percent or less 77% 63% 69% -
Increase them by more than 5 percent 4% 3% 15% 80%
Hold them flat 19% 33% 15% 10%
Decrease them by 5 percent or less - - - 10%
Decrease them by more than 5 percent - - - -
What percentage of your top 50 clients receive a rate discount? All Firms New York Washington, D.C. Chicago
Average 45% 44% 51% 60%
Is it easier to collect from clients who are billed at rack rates than from those that receive discounts? All Firms New York Washington, D.C. Chicago
Yes 19% 4% 17% 40%
No 81% 96% 83% 60%
What changes are you currently seeing in client behavior? All Firms New York Washington, D.C. Chicago
Clients are paying bills later 68% 47% 62% 70%
Clients are requesting deeper discounts 74% 60% 85% 90%
More clients are requesting discounts 92% 77% 100% 100%
Other 11% 10% 15% -
Multiple responses were allowed
If you have deployed alternative/value-based fee arrangements in 2009, please indicate which kinds you’ve used: All Firms New York Washington, D.C. Chicago
Annual or some other periodic retainer fee for a portfolio of services 62% 40% 77% 80%
Collars, caps, etc. 71% 57% 77% 100%
Contingency fees 73% 40% 100% 60%
Disincentive or failure fees 14% - 15% 30%
Flat fee for the entire matter 82% 63% 100% 80%
Flat fees for some or all stages of a matter 78% 63% 69% 90%
Incentive or success fees 75% 57% 92% 90%
Blended rates 2% - - -
None 4% 7% - -
Multiple responses were allowed
In 2009, approximately what percentage of your matters included a value-based/nonhourly fee component? All Firms New York Washington, D.C. Chicago
Average 14% 19% 10% 11%
If your firm has used alternative staffing arrangements this year, please indicate which: All Firms NY Firms Washington, D.C. Chicago
Secondments 60% 67% 54% 70%
Shared staffing 9% 3% 15% -
Work handled by contract lawyers working at law firms 44% 47% 46% 30%
Work outsourced to third party and handled by lawyers 26% 17% 15% 40%
Work outsourced to third party and handled by nonlawyers 16% 10% - 20%
None 25% 20% 15% 20%
Other 4% - - 10%
Multiple responses were allowed
For those value-based arrangements you have in place: All Firms New York Washington, D.C. Chicago
The client asked us to propose or negotiate alternative fees 11% 9% - 10%
We proposed alternative fees to clients 4% - - 20%
Some of both 85% 91% 100% 70%
Are more or fewer clients willing to discuss changing their fee or other service structures? All Firms New York Washington, D.C. Chicago
More clients 86% 81% 92% 90%
Fewer clients - - - -
About the same as always 14% 15% 8% 10%
None 1% 4% - -
Are more or fewer law firms willing to discuss changing their fee or other service structures? All Firms New York Washington, D.C. Chicago
More law firms 93% 92% 92% 90%
About the same as always 5% 4% 8% -
Fewer law firms 1% 4% - -
None 1% - - 10%
In your judgment, why have there not been more alternative fee billing arrangements: All Firms New York Washington, D.C. Chicago
Absent better metrics and data, it is difficult to determine alternative values. 58% 40% 46% 80%
Alternative arrangements are too difficult to negotiate or stick to. 35% 27% 23% 30%
Alternative arrangements are too risky. 21% 10% 8% 40%
Clients are comfortable with the billable hour. 75% 63% 62% 90%
Law firms are comfortable with the billable hour. 67% 57% 62% 80%
Law firms are unwilling to participate in alternative arrangements. 6% 3% 15% -
Many law firms and clients have insufficient experience defining or managing work on an alternative basis. 82% 73% 69% 90%
Other 58% 7% - -
Multiple responses were allowed