Georgia Proposes Flat Rates For Representing Indigents In Capital Cases

Admin — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 08:00:25 GMT

Legislation has been introduced in Georgia to provide more cost accountability to state-funded defense of capital cases. What has caused the uproar?

In March of 2005, Brian Nichols was awaiting trial for rape in Fulton County, Ga. While changing clothes to prepare for his court appearance, Nichols overpowered a deputy, walked into Judge Rowland Barne's courtroom through the judge's chambers and shot both Judge Barnes and a court reporter. During his escape, he injured several and killed two others. The manhunt that ensured culminated in an unlikely ending: Nichols in the apartment of a drug user who was soul-searching and through an 11 hour conversation softened Nichols enough to let her leave. She called 911 and Nichols eventually surrendered without further violence.

Since then, Georgia has seen one of the longest murder trials in state history take place. Since Nichols qualifies as an indigent under Georgia law, the taxpayers are footing the bill for his defense. The Atlanta Journal Constitution reported that the cost of the trial has exceeded $2 million in defense costs alone. That has outraged the Georgia Legislature enough to change the law regarding representation of indigents in capital cases. According to the AJC:

The bill . . . could reduce the financial burden on the Georgia Public Defender Standards Council, which oversees the statewide indigent defense system. Under the bill, the council would pay for the first $150,000 paid to private lawyers defending an indigent capital case and 75 percent of the next $100,000, with the county paying the other 25 percent. Beyond $250,000, the state and the county would split defense costs.

Here's the kicker: The measure recommends that the council set contracts with flat rates for attorneys' fees and expenses in death cases. Sound like a good idea?

Perhaps if defending capital cases were akin to filing Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. However, for private sector attorneys who represent indigents in capital cases, does it remove the incentive to take on these difficult matters? Would a criminal defense attorney zealously defend a suspect for a flat rate for both fees and expenses when you have Judges saying things such as"[e]veryone in the world knows he did it" (as the New York Times reported Judge Fuller said before having to recuse himself from the case)?

Is Georgia trying to limit the representation of indigents in capital cases? Or are they only limiting the financial incentive to defend them? If it is the latter, then ostensibly an attorney may lose the zeal to defend a client once the money runs out - unless they believe that the defendant is innocent. And that might be the point of the legislation. [poll=8]

Morepartnerincome.com is sponsored by Juris®. For information about Juris products and services for increasing law firm performance and partner income contact Juris National Sales Center:

877/377-3740, e-mail info@juris.com or go to www.Juris.com.

Lawyer Professionalism Tied To Value Billing?

Admin — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 08:00:01 GMT

It's not that I am against value billing. I am just against the proposition that the hourly billing model is an inherent source of evil. When reading Ed Poll's post on Professionalism versus Competence, a sentence caught my eye that appears to be another slam against the billable hour.

The post is about a recent USA Today poll asking whether co-worker's rude or unprofessional behavior should be tolerated if they otherwise do a good job. Thankfully the answer was overwhelmingly no. No one wants to work with rude people.

Poll notes the new firm Patrick Lamb co-founded this year that focuses on value billing. There is much positive press when law firms move to this model so the marketing upside is a good thing. But then came this:

As more lawyers succeed in this business model, perhaps others will follow. Then, perhaps, will civility in the profession be achieved.

Am I to conclude that without this business model (value billing), civility can't be achieved in the legal profession? First, I don't want to mistake Poll's point: that providing value to clients and a team mentality within the firm adds civility to the profession. Agreed. However, how is this at odds with hourly billing? Is it because some (and unfortunately many) are sloppy in their billing process? Or worse, unfairly padding their hours?

Assuming this is a widespread problem, does value billing fix it? Maybe, but not by its presence alone. If you sell services at a fixed fee, you had better know the price of your services or you won't be in business long. Tom Kane explains in a recent post the importance of tracking time even if you bill at a fixed fee.

Understanding that in all but a few routine transactions there are variations in the time it takes to provide a service depending on the variables surrounding the case, you will need to account for differences in the price of particular tasks. So while on the surface everyone may be paying the same for a service, some will be paying more for a task while others pay less. It depends on how difficult the task is and how efficient the attorney.

In fact, if anything, value billing helps budgeting for lawyers since you can set goals on how many tasks you sell clients. Crafty firms can then weed out the difficult cases through case assessment to maximize profit. Finally, marketing efforts can sway those who would buy into the "value" concept unaware of the higher price they are paying for a simple legal task.

Am I saying this is how firms who "value bill" operate? No. Can they operate this way? Yes. Is that a better value to clients? No. And to answer the presumptive rebuttal, "with value-billing, if the client doesn't like the fee, we will adjust it for them" I would answer, "and how is this different from hourly billing?" I've yet to meet a lawyer that is unfamiliar with post-bill adjustments. Some attorneys have a chronic habit of reducing their fees prior to billing as well. The biggest attraction to the value billing model isn't the savings to clients (marketing notwithstanding), it's the potential for higher revenues for well-managed law firms who price margin into the fee. The value of value billing to the client is nothing more than trading actual cost for pre-performance cost certainty - that apparently can still be negotiated after the service is provided (at least when firms open the door for negotiating fees after performance).

Once again, it comes down to trust. If there is a trusted relationship between attorney and client, then attorneys shouldn't overbill their clients and clients shouldn't question attorneys' fees (after-the-fact) - regardless of the method. As Poll states in an earlier post, "there is a very small percentage of 'bad apples' in the legal profession." The devil isn't in the billable hour. It's in those bad apples.

Morepartnerincome.com is sponsored by Juris®. For information about Juris products and services for increasing law firm performance and partner income contact Juris National Sales Center:

877/377-3740, e-mail info@juris.com or go to www.Juris.com.

Make More Rain : alternative billing, margin

Georgia Proposes Flat Rates For Representing Indigents In Capital Cases

Lawyer Professionalism Tied To Value Billing?