An Alternative to Alternative Billing Practices for Local Governments

There’s no shortage of articles talking about how the billable hour is a thing of the past. Some argue that neither the lawyer nor the client gets the best bang for that hourly buck. I don’t know if I agree with that, but I do think alternative billing systems may be appropriate in certain circumstances.

The Cincinnati area in general, and my law firm specifically, has a somewhat different approach to fee structures with local government clients. Even though we’ve been doing this for decades, some would say that it fits with the recent arguments for alternative billing structures not centered on the billable hour.

With certain variations, attorneys typically have a structure combining an annual retainer for certain elements of work and hourly rates for other types of work. A typical arrangement for me would be to charge a flat annual retainer that would cover attending all regular council meetings and drafting or reviewing all standard legislative requests. All other work, including research, drafting legal opinions, meetings with city staff, collective bargaining, and litigation would be billed by the hour at a blended government rate. In other words, all attorneys in the firm, no matter how senior, bill at this reduced rate.

This arrangement has worked for years, and both lawyers and clients seem to be happy with it. However, over the last year, I have tried an alternative to this alternative billing structure.

Like most local government lawyers, I spend a lot of time out of my regular office and attending various meetings with elected officials and management level staff members. Arranging these meetings can often be an administrative nightmare, trying to deal with multiple calendars and finding open times for everyone involved.

In order to streamline this process, the City of Mason, Ohio and I have experimented with a new concept where I have scheduled office hours at the municipal building where almost all of their staff is located. These office hours are considered part of the flat annual retainer, so the City has a cost savings opportunity to load up the work while I’m there. By paying the flat fee they can schedule routine meetings with me rather than pay a premium hourly fee to have me attend at other times.

But more importantly, knowing in advance when these office hours will take place provides certain efficiencies for the client. We no longer waste time trying to schedule meetings – they can always be set during the office hours. Elected officials now have a set time when they know I will be in the City and available to meet. Much of the thought and administrative headache is removed from the equation. I also know that I have time set aside to work on projects for this client. In other words, it removes much of the friction that gets in the way of getting work done.

I like it. The client likes. I get more work completed, and the client gets a more efficient work product. Am I missing something here? Maybe this alternative to the alternative should become the norm. But in the meantime, I have to get back to recording my day in fraction of an hour increments. Right?