Billing rates going up

December 2, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Clients are going to have to pony up a little more cash next year for their lawyers. According to an Altman Weil survey on 2010 billing rates, only about 10 percent of firms surveyed plan to maintain their current billing rates or decrease rates. The average rate increase is projected to be about 3.2 percent.

Many of the firms said they felt pressure from clients to not raise rates, but felt it was necessary because they froze rates in the past few years. Some also said the move toward alternative fee arrangements makes the hourly rate increases “increasingly irrelevant.” A few firms noted the increases they’ll make aren’t nearly as much as they had in previous years.

Some firms will pass along the higher rates only to new clients or in certain practice areas. Associate billing rates will be the mostly likely to see the increase, and a higher rate increase to boot.

“Many firms feel the need to cover their associate costs with rate increases,” said Altman Weil principal Tom Clay. “And because associate rates are lower, increases there may attract less comment from clients than increases at the partner level.”

The AW survey includes comment from respondents regarding why they are or aren’t raising rates. Some interesting ones:

- “Firms need to push back on the clients' unreasonable demands to hold rates at 2008 levels and give a 15% discount off of those rates.”

- “We froze our rates moving from 2008 into 2009. I hear managing partners speaking of freezing rates moving into 2010. We can't sit out two years without changing, so we are going to do so, hoping that client goodwill from last year will cushion us at this year's hike.”

- “We don't even try to raise rates every year. The greedy SOBs that do have antagonized the entire industry to those of us who only seek to raise rates when economically necessary (and PPP isn't economic necessity).”

What’s your firm’s strategy in terms of billing rates for next year? Is increasing rates a better alternative than cutting attorneys for firms looking to find more cash?
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Is this a social parallel to the Mosby prosecutions in Baltimore? Progressive ideology ever seeks Pilgrims to burn at the stake. (I should know.)

  2. The Conour embarrassment is an example of why it would be a good idea to NOT name public buildings or to erect monuments to "worthy" people until AFTER they have been dead three years, at least. And we also need to stop naming federal buildings and roads after a worthless politician whose only achievement was getting elected multiple times (like a certain Congressman after whom we renamed the largest post office in the state). Also, why have we renamed BOTH the Center Township government center AND the new bus terminal/bum hangout after Julia Carson?

  3. Other than a complete lack of any verifiable and valid historical citations to back your wild context-free accusations, you also forget to allege "ate Native American children, ate slave children, ate their own children, and often did it all while using salad forks rather than dinner forks." (gasp)

  4. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  5. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

ADVERTISEMENT