Death of the Billable Hour?

Is the billable hour dying? And if it is, is that something for attorneys to celebrate or fear?

It's been suggested by the ABA that law firms need to move beyond the billable hour because it is inefficient, inhibits imaginative legal solutions to client's problems, and it's slowly killing associates.

While the legal industry has not immediately moved to end the practice of billing in 6 minute intervals, some clients are rebelling:

Lawyers who work in-house for corporations—making only as much as a third or fourth-year law firm associate—think their companies, when they outsource legal work to firms, unintentionally fund the salary extravaganza. And so Cisco, Pitney Bowes, Caterpillar, and several other large corporations have begun to force their law firms into alternative billing arrangements. The companies push flat fees and volume-based discounts, and ban young associates from working on their business, hoping to avoid paying through the nose for work that could be done more cheaply by paralegals or temp lawyers. They say that by eradicating or at least limiting hourly rates, they avoid cost creep, cut their bills, and better predict their expenses.

http://www.slate.com/id/2180420/fr/rss/

Nevada law hasn't heard of any Vegas firms switching over to alternative billing arrangements. Any readers operating under alternative billing? Let us know (nevadalegal@gmail.com).

Even more important, if the billable hour is dying, is that good news or bad news for new associates? It could lift some of the billable pressure off their backs, but could also lead to a slash in salary if the clients are refusing to let new associates work on their business.