In-House Counsel

More than a score of posts on this blog survey the interplay between the amount paid law firms and the perceived worth of the services paid for. Roughly half of the comments pertain to specific billing rates and amounts billed in light of the perceived value (See my post of Jan. 13, 2006: rates that vary according to value delivered; May 14, 2006: rates according to value; May 26, 2006: conditional billing rates; Aug. 20, 2006: value-based payments; Oct. 22, 2006: lower rates for lower value work; Nov. 11, 2007: fees paid compared to value received; Nov. 22, 2007: another view on the fees vs. value assessment; Feb. 4, 2007: difficulty of stating a dollar value for what a firm accomplishes; June 20, 2008: value for money paid to firms; Nov. 21, 2008: value-based payments; and April 5, 2009: higher discounts for lower value work.).

The other half of my previous posts address collateral and broader points (See my post of May 1, 2006: inexperienced inside lawyers can?t assess value of outside counsel; Nov. 28, 2007: blame for lack of value partly falls on legal department; July 17, 2008: criticisms of law firms for inefficiency; March 30, 2008: bumps on the road to value pricing; Sept. 12, 2008: value proposition of regional firms; Oct. 22, 2008: normal fees deserve normal quality; June 1, 2009: value-based billing and changes at advertising agencies; April 25, 2009: ACC Value Challenge; July 4, 2009: clients set value; July 5, 2009: ?cost? compared to ?value?; and Aug. 10, 2009: ?value for money? rating.).