Among many internet-friendly attorneys, “value based” billing is a Thing. Much-hyped, championed, to the denigration of dinosaurs (like me) who prefer to bill hourly.
Here are my objections to value based billing.
(1) I am not greedy. (2) I also am not selfless.
When I look at the value I can accomplish for a given client, compared to the hourly rate that I want to bill for it in order to make a satisfactory standard of living, it is apparent to me that I could bill WAY MORE under a “value” model, and the client most likely would pay it. This would be akin to a plumber who fixes a dripping faucet in 30 minutes and charges $1000 because her work saved replacement of an expensive set of cabinetry.
While the plumber may have a point about the “value” of her work, I would be royally pissed if she charged me that much for a 30 minute job.
I take a similar approach toward my own work. It’s great if I can get the client a $60,000 result with about 20 hours of work (real example). I don’t think that I should then charge the client 1/3 of the result. I’m happy with the roughly $6000 she’s paid me.
Sometimes the result isn’t that great. Sometimes I put in a lot of work and the opposing party or the Court just won’t play. In that case, I don’t agree that I should receive zero dollars for a lot of work based on circumstances I don’t completely control.
Therefore, I object to the concept of “value based billing” as either a mask for greed or a foolish path to financial difficulty.
