@JoshuaLenon@bobambrogi@MEKowalski @jackwshepherd @inspiredcat@ApperioLtd@DCaseyF Completely agree. Value based pricing is preferred but the reality is that (outside of limited examples) this is nigh on impossible to deliver in a service based industry. Works well in the land of software with marginal cost of production but falls short with legal services.
@StephenMayson@bobambrogi@ApperioLtd Correlation between cost and value can be limited (there is some convergence), however, value based pricing is an enigma in most service based industries. Flip to software and most modern SaaS orgs use value based pricing (be that consumption or some other metric).
@NoffkeLaw@bobambrogi@JasmineGavigan Neither really. In-house lawyers should insist on transparency where the billable hour is the model used. AFAs are the right method for the right type of work but not all etc.
@bobambrogi@JasmineGavigan As @bobambrogi said, it's not right for all legal work any more than AFAs are.
Reality is that the billable hour is still the dominant method of billing. Far better to ensure transparency (ie sunshine is the best disinfectant) than pretend the billable hour it doesn't exist.
@bobambrogi@ApperioLtd Opaqueness is the culprit, not the billable hour. For the right type of work, AFAs work but for contentious or bespoke work the billable hour (with transparency) is the truest representation of cost.
More Brexit winning.
Remain should've built their campaign on roaming charges. If leavers weren't listening to independent experts unanimously spelling out how this makes them worse off then roaming charges were the tangible medium to get this through!
https://t.co/1kh03WZ0Z0
@RMabey@ApperioLtd Ha! @RMabey that was why I started @ApperioLtd in the first place. The idea of 'for services rendered' as a detailed invoice is amazing.