In the seemingly endless debate about the viability of the billable hour, here's another notable entry -- that of Northwestern Law School professor Steven Harper, who says that the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion this April, Perdue v Kenny A., affirmed the "lodestar" method of calculating fees, which is based on hours worked times a billing rate, writing that “if hourly billing becomes unusual, an alternative to the lodestar method [hours worked times billing rate] may have to be found. However, neither the respondents nor their amici contend that that day has arrived.” Harper suggests that as a result of Perdue, that day may never come:
Where’s the room for practitioners to experiment away from hourly billing? Nowhere to be found in the majority opinion. . .
As a result, lawyers maximizing their chances for court approval of their fees will adhere to hourly billing. Innovators experiment at their peril because, depending on the type of matter, they risk not getting paid. The Supreme Court’s imprimatur on the billable hour regime creates a perpetual loop that won’t help the profession jettison it.
Photo: David Benbennick
