Should Lawyers Get a Higher Fee for Working More Hours?

Which lawyer should be paid a higher fee?

Lawyer A represents a client charged with a felony. He’s not very experienced. He takes longer to do the work, has little credibility with prosecutors, and doesn’t have much leverage in negotiations. After spending 100 hours on the case, the best deal he can get is a plea for five years in prison.

Lawyer B is a respected, highly experienced defense lawyer. She doesn’t have to reinvent the wheel. She spends 10 hours on the case. Because of her expertise, skill, and reputation with prosecutors, she negotiates a plea where the client gets probation.

Now, critics of contingency fees who argue fees should be tied to time spent would say Lawyer A deserves more money because he worked ten times as long as Lawyer B.

But does that make any sense at all? Does it make sense to say Lawyer B got a “windfall” simply because her skill, experience, and reputation allowed her to achieve a far better outcome in less time? Of course not.

Time doesn’t equal value to the client, and our clients don’t care how many hours are spent. They care about results. The lawyer who delivers the better outcome is the one who provides the greater value and deserves the higher fee.

The same principle applies in personal injury cases. The more money recovered for the client, the higher the fee, even if everyone charged the same percentage (which they don’t). That’s not a windfall. It’s the fair recognition that results matter.

The ABA Model Rules even acknowledge this. Reasonableness of a fee depends on factors like “the amount involved and the results obtained,” as well as “the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer.”

At the end of the day, clients don’t hire us to log hours. They hire us to deliver outcomes. And the lawyer who delivers the better result isn’t worth less, even if it takes them less time to get the result. They’re worth more.

What do you think? Join the conversation with me on LinkedIn.