O’Neill Law on Legal Fees

The phrase "time is money" is an almost axiomatic expression that reflects one of the fundamental realities of life in a capitalist society.

In a broad sense, nearly every economic decision we make involves an exchange between time and money. When we go to work, we exchange hours of our lives for income. When we hire someone to paint our house, mow our lawn, prepare our taxes, or remodel our kitchen, we reverse the transaction. We exchange money to save time, reduce effort, or obtain expertise that we do not possess ourselves.

I find myself thinking about this concept often. When we are younger, we are generally willing to exchange significant amounts of our time if we believe it will ultimately lead to greater financial success. A law student may devote three years to earning a degree that opens the door to a legal career. A young associate may willingly work late into the night to earn a substantial bonus or accelerate the path toward partnership. At that stage of life, the exchange often seems well worth it.

As we grow older, however, many of us come to appreciate a simple but profound truth: while it is possible to earn more money, time is the one resource we can never replenish. Every hour spent is gone forever. That realization inevitably changes the way we think about the value of both time and money.

This relationship has long shaped the economics of legal practice. Indeed, the concept that time is money lies at the heart of the traditional hourly billing model that has defined the legal profession for generations.

Why Lawyers Bill by the Hour

The billable hour did not emerge by accident. At its core, hourly billing attempts to solve a legitimate economic problem. Legal work is difficult to predict. Every matter presents new facts, unexpected developments, and changing client objectives. Billing by the hour ensures that an attorney is compensated for the time required to produce quality work, regardless of how the matter evolves.

From the lawyer's perspective, the model makes sense. It aligns compensation with effort and helps ensure that clients receive the attention their matters deserve. There is nothing inherently unethical or unreasonable about it. But that does not necessarily mean it is the best experience for clients.

The Client's Perspective

Most of us rarely purchase services by the hour. When we renovate a kitchen, hire an accountant to prepare a tax return, have our hair cut, or retain a contractor to install a roof, we generally expect to know the price before the work begins. In each case, the service provider bears the responsibility of estimating the work involved and pricing the project accordingly. If the project takes slightly longer than expected, that is absorbed by the service provider.

Clients understandably wonder why legal services so often operate differently. One reason is that legal work genuinely carries greater uncertainty than many other professional services. But another reason is simply that hourly billing has become the industry's default.

The result is a pricing model that often creates anxiety. Clients hesitate before picking up the phone. Simple questions become cost-benefit analyses. Every conversation has the potential to increase the invoice. That is not always conducive to a healthy attorney-client relationship.

Rethinking the Model

One of my goals in building O'Neill Law has been to think carefully about how legal services should be delivered. Simply because “that's how lawyers have always done it” does not mean it has to be done that way. To the extent that I can innovate by offering creative new billing models and experiment within the marketplace to see how well these billing models are received, I intend to do so.  

Whenever practical, I prefer to offer fixed-fee arrangements that provide clients with certainty before work begins. Fixed-fee arrangements allow the client to view the service as objective-focused, rather than an exercise in “How is my attorney going to figure out ways to rack up the hours?” Fixed-fee arrangements can also eliminate a significant source of stress for attorneys. The attorney need not worry if he or she is billing “too much” or “too little” on a given project. The focus is on the outcome.   

Moreover, for clients with ongoing legal needs, I believe subscription-based relationships can also make sense. Many businesses would rather budget a predictable monthly expense than experience significant fluctuations in their legal costs.

I also try, whenever possible, to avoid billing clients for short phone calls. Questions arise. Clarifications become necessary. Sometimes a five-minute conversation prevents an hour of unnecessary work later. I do not believe clients should feel reluctant to call their lawyer because they are mentally watching a billing meter run. Clients should feel that the ability to make these calls is simply part of the value of having trusted legal counsel.  

The objective is not to ignore the economic reality that time has value. Rather, it is to structure that exchange in a way that is more transparent, more predictable, and better aligned with the interests of both attorney and client.

Technology Changes the Equation

Offering predictable pricing requires confidence. To quote a fixed fee responsibly, an attorney must have a reasonable understanding of the work involved and confidence that the matter can be completed within that estimate.

This is where I believe artificial intelligence presents one of its greatest opportunities—not by replacing legal judgment, but by making pricing more predictable. Modern AI tools can dramatically reduce many of the routine, time-consuming tasks that previously consumed professional hours. They can organize information, accelerate preliminary research, identify issues for further review, and answer many of the initial questions that help an attorney scope a project.

Importantly, this does not eliminate the need for legal judgment. However, it does reduce uncertainty. And reducing uncertainty makes it easier to offer clients the kind of predictable pricing they have come to expect in many other areas of commerce.

A Better Exchange

Time will always have value. That reality will never change.

The challenge for every professional is determining how to structure the exchange so that both parties benefit.

My goal is not to eliminate hourly billing entirely. There will always be matters where it remains the most practical approach.

Rather, my goal is to remain flexible—to choose the billing model that best serves both the client and the matter. Sometimes that will mean a fixed fee. Sometimes it will mean a subscription arrangement. And sometimes traditional hourly billing will remain the fairest approach.

If technology allows lawyers to provide greater certainty without sacrificing quality, I believe we should embrace that opportunity.

After all, the practice of law should evolve alongside the clients it exists to serve.