1901
|
| While “time-based billing, such as hourly fees, can only be based on actual time spent on a task,” AI and “other technological tools that result in comparable productivity improvements“ implicate the “ethical parameters for non-hourly fee structures.” Rule 1.5(a)(1)’s reasonable fee standard includes consideration of both: “the time and labor required”; and (2) “the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly.” Lawyer’s’ technical expertise and judgment about deploying AI and similar tools “represent valuable services for which the lawyer reasonably can be compensated,” and thus “support[ ] value-based billing models that focus on outcomes rather than inputs.” “It is not per se unreasonable for a lawyer to charge the same non- hourly fee for work done with the assistance of AI as work done without the use of AI.” As long as the lawyer explains the basis for a fixed fee,” “Rule 1.5 should not require the lawyer to surrender any benefit from the efficiency gains if clients continue to receive value from the lawyer’s output.”; Such a required explanation “could … be particularly important if the lawyer’s time spent on the specific representation is substantially reduced due to the productivity-enhancing tool, such that the client may need additional explanation of why the lawyer’s experience, technical skills, or other efficiencies contribute to the value of the services and determination of the fee.” |