16.09.2015 Views

ARCTIC OBITER

Arctic Obiter - May 2010 - Law Society of the Northwest Territories

Arctic Obiter - May 2010 - Law Society of the Northwest Territories

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

10 | <strong>ARCTIC</strong> <strong>OBITER</strong><br />

The New Rules of Pricing<br />

By Jordan Furlong, Law21.ca<br />

Recently, I’m told, several GCs and senior lawyers of large<br />

law firms gathered in London for a high-level conversation<br />

about new billing mechanisms. One noteworthy observation<br />

to emerge from the meeting was the law firms’ insistence<br />

that whatever new mechanism was developed, it had to take<br />

into account chargeable time invested in the work. I wasn’t<br />

there to see the clients’ reaction, but if a few eyes were<br />

rolled, it wouldn’t surprise me.<br />

Lawyers are going nowhere in this new marketplace unless<br />

they can lose this obsession with the effort-based valuation<br />

of work. At the heart of lawyers’ billable-hour infatuation,<br />

even beyond the attraction of low-risk pricing and the<br />

enablement of perfectionism, lies the basic belief that the<br />

harder you work, the more you should get paid. “It took me<br />

ten hours to do this, so I should be paid twice what another<br />

task took five hours to do.” The nature of the work, its<br />

relative simplicity or complexity, the knowledge resources it<br />

did or didn’t require, and the value or relative lack thereof to<br />

the client — all these variables are considered incidental to<br />

the effort exerted, the expenditure of the lawyer’s precious<br />

time, to accomplish the work.<br />

Very few marketplaces, however, base price directly on<br />

effort and time. Avatar cost 20 times what The Hurt Locker<br />

cost to make and took years longer to complete, yet my ticket<br />

to watch either Oscar contender costs the same. One real<br />

estate agent might make ten times more effort at finding the<br />

right buyers for a home than another, yet they both get the<br />

same commission upon sale. I can<br />

go to a global craft show and buy a<br />

beautiful hand-made shawl that an aged, arthritic,<br />

Guatemalan woman spent a painful three days to create for<br />

less than a family dinner at the local pizza joint will cost that<br />

same night. Price differences can emerge from expertise, or<br />

from quality, or from brand assurance, or from customer<br />

value — but they don’t emerge from how hard someone had<br />

to work to make something.<br />

Clients truly don’t care what it costs lawyers, in time and<br />

effort, to do their jobs. All they care about is the price, and<br />

the aptness of any price is ultimately judged by the<br />

purchaser against the value that the purchase delivers. Price<br />

is what the buyer will pay; cost is the resource drain on the<br />

seller to make the product or service. Lawyers conflate the<br />

two and base their price on their costs in time and effort.<br />

Clients are saying: your time and your effort are not relevant<br />

to the value of your service to me. What the current<br />

unprecedented drive towards fixed fees for legal work really<br />

signifies is a marketplace slowly but steadily shifting from<br />

supplier-based pricing to customer-based pricing.<br />

Lawyers are having a very difficult time with this, for three<br />

reasons. One, as stated, is the realization that their time and<br />

effort has little market value. A second is the subsequent<br />

realization that they now need to understand and control<br />

their own internal costs to a degree never before required,<br />

and at many law firms, that’s a nightmare scenario. But the<br />

News<br />

Events<br />

Publications<br />

Forms<br />

www.lawsociety.nt.ca<br />

It’s all online.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!