Many comments on this blog about alternative fee arrangements

Always curating my blog, I went back to early 2009 to see since then what this blog has about alternative fee arrangements. Almost three dozen came to light.

Of course, a number of the posts had to do with metrics (See my post of Sept. 13, 2006: percentage of matters handled under alternative fee arrangements; Dec. 7, 2009: 55% of survey respondents to Hildebrandt said they have used AFAs; June 14, 2010: data from France on AFAs; Aug. 5, 2010: data from Kerma Partners; and Oct. 22, 2010: survey data on AFAs.).

Arguments for and against alternative fee arrangements abound (See my post of Nov. 17, 2006: survey finds that predictability favors alternative fee arrangements; Jan. 13, 2008: delay saps attractiveness of alternative fee arrangements; Sept. 7, 2008: alternative fee arrangements and conflicts; May 6, 2009: you learn when you negotiate an AFA; Jan. 28, 2010: obstacle to AFAs is software and managerial supervision; March 16, 2010: Baer’s four objections to AFAs and my counters; March 24, 2010: alternative fees and transaction costs; April 6, 2010: less resistance in law departments, more perceived at firms; May 26, 2010: failure to pursue AFAs could be dereliction of GC’s duty; June 1, 2010: six boundary conditions; June 2, 2010: mindsets valuable for AFAs; June 9, 2010: three more mental concepts; Oct. 7, 2010: accounting has problems with AFAs; Dec. 21, 2010: scorn for AFAs; Dec. 26, 2010: law firms can profit more under AFAs, but your costs can go down; April 30, 2011: alternative firms over fees; and June 10, 2011: AFAs are not simply a budget;).

Definitions and specific examples multiplied (See my post of May 6, 2009: 6 alternative fee arrangements; May 19, 2009: firm gives clients a choice; July 24, 2009: two offerings by a firm; Feb. 22, 2010: Linklater’s internal pricing group could aid AFAs; June 13, 2011: not to be believed AFA; and June 19, 2011: example of AFA.).

As for the remain posts, there were about, shall we say, alternative ideas (See my post of May 24, 2006: matter types assumed to be accurately described for alternative fee arrangements; July 25, 2007: larger departments more able to explore AFAs; Sept. 22, 2009: discussion is not more valuable than implementation; Jan. 25, 2010: ROI is best for AFAs; Feb. 8, 2010: segment work to move toward AFA; Aug. 5, 2010: do AFAs save money; and Nov. 23, 2010: law departments aren’t forceful in RFPs.).

One Response to Many comments on this blog about alternative fee arrangements

We welcome comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *