What will this cost? It’s often the first thing I hear. And clients should know what to expect. Because of that, I try to be as transparent as possible with my fees, and avoid any surprises once the engagement has started.

Once I understand the scope of the engagement, and the client’s desired results, I endeavor to be as efficient as possible in my representation. In order to do so, I offer several different pricing models. Flexibility and value are key.

Hourly Rates.

Clients are increasingly lamenting the billable hour. It is an unknown variable, and offers lower-priced associates (to whom cases are often assigned) a goal for their yearly bonus.

For those engagements that require hourly billing, my hourly rates are in line with the Baltimore market, and within the guidelines set by the federal court in Maryland for attorneys with comparable experience. The rates are flexible, given the type of matter, the client and the scope of the representation.

Fixed Fees.

Fixed fees are often the alternative to the billable hour. The client knows what the engagement will cost, and the attorney knows what he or she will be paid. With a fixed-fee model, it is important for both parties to properly define the engagement and the scope of work. Full and open communication are key.

Some engagements may lend themselves to a fixed fee for either the entire engagement, or a portion of it. The scope of the engagement, the client’s expectations, and the background of the matter all contribute to the charged fee.

District Court actions, limited scope representations, and cases where the amount in controversy is less than $30,000 are particularly suited to flat fees.

Hybrid & Contingency.

These models are usually utilized where the risk is shared between the attorney and the client. In a hybrid model, an agreed-upon amount is billed to the client – on either a flat fee or hourly basis – and the remainder of the fee is usually based on a contingency or outcome specific.

Hybrid and contingency arrangements are often preferred to hourly billing and fixed fees where the scope of the engagement cannot be accurately determined, such as complex litigation, and both parties want some assurance of the fees while at the same time leaving open the possibility that the engagement may be more expansive, or less expansive, than originally contemplated.