The answers we heard were illuminating.
Some were skeptical.
One lawyer walked by, saw our banner, heard our question, and laughed.
Then he commented:
“Good luck with that.”
Meaning: Good luck killing the billable hour in legal.
Then an assistant general counsel came by the booth, saw our messaging, and said:
“People go in-house specifically to get away from the billable hour.”
Then she told us how she’d left her job at a firm to escape her 1,800-hour quota.
“My quota was 1,800 hours, but we all knew it was really 2,000 plus if you wanted to move up. I tried to put in 2,100.”
Perhaps the most interesting story came from a GC at a global brand.
She’d recently left her position at a firm to take the GC role.
“I realized that I hadn’t taken a full day of paid time off in 30 years. But I took a day off and spent it with my daughter, and it was the best.”
As I've talked about before, stories like these are a big reason why — in my view — moving from billable hours to value-based billing is a move that is good for in-house teams — but also good for the firms they work with.
I'm curious to know what you think, so I’ll put the question to you.
"How do you feel about killing the billable hour?"
If you have a moment, click “reply” to this email and let me know what you think. I'd love to hear your take.
-Jim Delkousis
Founder and CEO
PERSUIT | www.persuit.com
P.S. Last week on The Innovative Legal Leadership podcast, I sat down with David Falstein, our VP of Client Success and Strategy.
David is one of the most knowledgeable people I know in the area of legal operations and alternative fee arrangements.
He took me through some of his experiences helping Fortune 500 companies move away from the billable hour to AFAs.
I hope you'll give it a listen:
