What do I charge for my services?

That’s the question many lawyers ask, especially those who run a solo practice.

You could argue it’s a non-issue, that the market sets the rates, it’s out of your hands, etc. That’s true, to a certain extent. The market (and the law) does set boundaries. If you want to keep your license to practice, you can’t set your rates unreasonably high. If you want to stay in business, you can’t set them too low.

But ignore all that for now.

Here’s why you should price yourself out of the market.

Don’t Strangle Yourself

The question, “What do I charge?” is a sleeper question, the kind of question that, if you give a bad answer, sneaks up on you and strangles you in the night.

Don’t get strangled by giving a bad answer like one of these:

  • My hourly rate is $150 because I’m a greenhorn new lawyer
  • My contingency fee is 30% because that’s standard practice
  • My flat fee is $500 because that’s what it’s always been

It’s not the rates themselves that make these bad answers. There’s nothing wrong with $150 per hour for a new lawyer handling civil litigation, or 30% contingency on a personal injury case, or a $500 flat fee to handle a Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

It’s the straightjacket, lock-step approach to why you set your rates the way you do that’ll strangle you.

Because if you don’t think for yourself, and clearly articulate your reasoning in how you price yourself, one day soon you’ll find yourself clamoring for the no. 1 spot on Google search results because you think you have no other option.

Know the ‘Why’ Behind What You Charge

Those who clamor for the no. 1 spot on Google tend to spend a lot of money on the effort. Then they despair when it doesn’t happen, or when they fall off the page, and local competitors move up in the rankings.

Sometimes it’s just an ego thing. They want to grow and grow and be the biggest player in town. That’s fine. I’m not laboring under the illusion that search results and online visibility don’t matter, especially for so-called “high volume” practices like bankruptcy or Social Security disability.

But keep your flat fee at $500 because you want to grow and grow and get every case possible, not because you’re afraid that you’ll scare away potential clients.

Otherwise, if you’re not trying to be the biggest player in town, who cares if you scare away some potential clients by raising your flat fee to $750 or $1,000 or even higher? Who says you have to run a high-volume practice at all?

If You’ve Got the ‘Why,’ Here’s the ‘How’

Now here’s where it gets interesting.

Let’s say you’re prepared to price yourself out of the market. Not literally, mind you, but high enough that you’re sending a distinct message about your services as a lawyer.
Here’s what you can do:

  • Run a test case. If you’ve long been undercutting the competition, or simply running even, and you’re afraid what pricing yourself higher will do to business, try it on one case and see what happens. It’s just an experiment. It won’t kill your practice.
  • Do it from Day One. If you’re planning on starting your own solo practice, decide to price yourself out of the market from the start. This works well if you already have some experience (a former public defender, for example) because you know what you’re doing and can confidently quote a higher rate.

Pricing yourself like this will automatically weed out some types of potential clients (like those who would likely skip out on a lawyer’s bill, anyway, no matter its size) and tends to attract meatier cases.

Either way, your focus is no longer being no. 1 on Google. Instead, your focus is on finding good cases, representing decent clients who see the value in your work, and then delivering on that value by having the time and financial resources to give each case what it deserves.

Warning: This Isn’t For Everyone

I’ll end with some thoughts as to what type of lawyer can use this approach. Again, it’s not for everyone, and again, you can’t be unreasonable with your fees. There are limits to how much you can charge.

But pricing yourself out of the market, so to speak, is great for the following type of lawyer:

  1. You’re at the top of your game (or intend to be). Great lawyers know that true mastery is never really won. And the true master knows that there’s always more to learn. So to be at the top of your game, whether a greenhorn or not, means you price yourself, not everyone else. It’s how you value the kind of service you know you can provide.
  2. You care about your clients more than anything else. Pricing yourself as I describe isn’t about money or getting rich. It’s about having the time and resources to do a bang-up job on every case for every client. There’s a difference in any given month between 20 misdemeanor DWI cases at $500 per case and two felony DWI cases at $5,000 per case. Both approaches have you taking in $10,000 that month. But only one has you spending a lot more time on client service (and a lot less time running to the courtroom).
  3. You do not possess a “lack” mentality. If you think there are only so many cases, but so little time, and so much competition in the form of other lawyers ready to snap up all the business, this isn’t for you. You’re too afraid to look like you don’t have all the answers and to say “I don’t know” when you really should. Unfortunately, it seems to me, in conversations I’ve had, that many lawyers possess the lack mentality, the kind where lawyers are all a dime-a-dozen, and the future of law is in doubt, and “how are my kids gonna eat,” and it’s all just doom and gloom so let’s head to the safe room now while there’s still time.

There’s nothing wrong with being a businessperson who happens to be a lawyer. If you want to run a business, and the actual law practice is somewhat secondary, that’s fine.

But if you’re at the top of your game, you care more about your clients than the money, and you’re not afraid to compete on a higher level, pricing yourself “out of the market” might be one sane approach to the practice of law as we head into the future.


  1. Avatar John Skiba says:


    Good post. I practice in bankruptcy law and it often seems that it is a race to the bottom when it comes to fees. I have found that by charging a reasonable -albeit somewhat higher fee, and providing true value to the client that I haven’t had any problem in keeping a steady stream of clients.

    I have also found that if you can be creative in how you charge for your services clients will appreciate that. For instance I handle lower-level litigation matters on a flat fee. Most attorneys in my area won’t do that – they still expect a client to pay a large deposit and bill hourly on a case that is not worth that much. By charging a flat rate I have been able to get a large number of those cases and still do them profitably.

    • Thanks for your feedback, John. I think expecting a large deposit and billing hourly on cases you could instead handle on a flat fee basis is an example of the “default” setting that prevents many lawyers from doing it differently. If, indeed, clients appreciate flat fees more than other forms (and I think they generally do), your example serves to illustrate how you can turn attorney fees into a way to improve client service.

  2. Avatar Lukasz Gos says:

    Chris, may I hear more from you about why it’s bad to use, “because that’s the standard practice,” as an argument? I’ve always considered it a good one. It seems to combine nicely with reasonable, business-standard prices for above standard service, something alone these lines. And what better justification than tradition? Then again, I can see how uncreative an approach may show through it, so I’m open-minded on this one.

    Also, one of your colleagues here suggested doing a name-your-price experiment with clients. That’d be a great bunch of valuable data without bankrupting you, and without having to pay for a UX (user experience) survey. Bonus question: why did you set it at that level, I guess, for more data. Even if you can’t set it at that level in the long run, knowing what’s worth what to the clients is a good thing to know. (Might be a pointer for educating your clients on how much effort or education or skill some things require, which might not be obvious to a layman.)

    • Standard practice is not necessarily bad. In fact, if it works for your situation, it works. But I am concerned that certain types of law practices build their business models around the standard, thinking that they won’t get clients otherwise, and then find themselves with higher caseloads that must be maintained by always getting new cases in the door. In today’s world of competition, a lot of which takes place online, you get stuck in the trap of having to outdo the next firm on Google’s search results. So, rather than having a manageable caseload and doing a great job on all your cases, you have to “standardize” and “scale” everything. Sole practitioners, I think, could try out the “price yourself out” model. Larger firms w/ lots of overhead, employees, etc. and lots of cases, will have a tougher go at it.

  3. Avatar Vivian Rodriguez says:

    Good article. All of your pointers are great, and I think that many of us (“newly minted” and old JDs alike) would benefit from giving this some thinking. Once I left the “lack” mentality behind, I got better clients at both flat and hourly rates that clients like and also let me provide a good level of service to the client. Your point in the comments about educating the client is also a good one–sometimes (maybe that should be “most of the time”) they’re just not aware. But you are right, as a solo I can take advantage of this strategy; when I used to work for even smaller firms, they didn’t seem to have a similar option and did, in fact, have some form of the “scalable” model.

    • Thanks for your comment. I think it can’t be stressed enough that this model won’t work for everyone, and your experience as both a solo and small firm lawyer seems to confirm that. I’m glad at least some of this strategy seems to have worked for you.

  4. Avatar BCReed says:

    Interesting Article. I can say I agree with it though. The access to justice gap and shortage of legal jobs persuades me that there is excessive over pricing for legal services in the market. When you lower your fees for legal services and are extremely busy as a result, it is time to hire staff or partner up, not time to raise your prices. If you don’t know how to run a business you should find a legal job not open your own practice. There is a point where raising your prices makes economic and business sense but since most lawyers don’t have an education in economics I want try to explain it here. Google or Youtube “Elasticity of Demand”. It should be provide a helpful explanation as to when it is appropriate to raise prices and when you to lower prices.

Leave a Reply