[hristov]

Ok, many problems with this article. First the main theme is just wrong. It is quite a stretch to say that ruling minimal flat fee schedules illegal led to the billable hour. Flat fees are still legal and many lawyers use them. It is only illegal to have the bar association set minimums.

The article is also not quite correct to imply that the billable hour causes more misery than flat fees. If you have flat fees the partner will make the most money by forcing an associate to the largest number of flat fee assignments possible and that would still result in overwork. There are other worse problems with flat fee arrangements. In a flat fee situation you get paid the same regardless of how much work you put in, so there is incentive to finish the task with minimum amount of work. But if you are a perfectionist and/or a lawyer that takes pride in his work, you will spend extra time to do the job right when it requires it. And that will make your life extra miserable because the partner expects you to finish a certain number of tasks regardless.

So the problem is not billable hours or flat fees, the problem is that the partner makes money from associates labor and wants to squeeze out as much labor as possible. This is an issue in many careers of course, but it is somehow worse in law.

And yes, I have worked in top law firms (if you haven't noticed by the bitterness) and have worked both for billable hour and for some flat fee arrangements. I much preferred the billable hour stuff. If you are in a top firm you can just assume you will get the more difficult assignments so you shouldn't be taking flat fees.