The Syrian writer and thinker Muhammad Kurd Ali (d. 1953), may God have mercy on him, said: “The more lawyers there are, the longer cases take to resolve and the more litigation costs rise; lawyers’ fees are the cause of this prolongation and misdirection.”
In his time, the profession was less regulated and judicial procedures were simpler, and it may have been natural to see the lawyer as someone who prolongs proceedings more than he speeds them up.
Today, the lawyer’s role has changed. His presence has become, in essence, a means of organizing the dispute, controlling its course, and helping to resolve it faster rather than complicating it, provided the profession is practiced properly.
Although this view cannot be applied to the modern profession in general, some fee models may still leave clients with a degree of this sensitivity; they may feel, directly or indirectly, that a long case and many hours are a source of income for the lawyer, while for them they are a growing burden, especially when the cost has no clear limits or contours.
Even so, the problem remains in some pricing models, particularly billing by the hour, since the length of a case and its procedures may become a growing financial burden on the client.
This does not mean hourly pricing is wrong in itself; it may suit some legal work. The problem with it is that, however clear the scope of work and however transparent the invoicing, the final cost remains less predictable, for the client and the lawyer alike.
Someone who deals with a lawyer does not, in principle, intend to buy open-ended working hours with no known ceiling until the service or project is finished; rather, he intends to buy understanding, guidance, a result, or at least reduced risk.
For this reason, the model is now under criticism and review by clients, lawyers, and legal accountants, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic, as demand has grown for greater clarity in fees and fewer causes of dispute over them.
In our Saudi market, the common model — at least in small and medium-sized firms and offices — is fixed pricing, yet some lawyers see it as appropriate to move, even partially, to hourly pricing in certain legal services.
Here the paradox appears: in markets where hourly billing became widespread, many professionals have begun to lean toward fixed pricing in search of more clarity. In our Saudi market, on the other hand, a tendency toward hourly pricing has begun, seen as more precise, clearer, and closer to an organized profession.
From here the question arises: when is hourly pricing fair and appropriate? When is fixed pricing fairer and clearer? And might the solution be a hybrid model that combines the advantages of both?
Perhaps the discussion does not stop at choosing between hourly and fixed pricing but extends to a broader question: can a lawyer’s business model — in some of his services at least — shift from selling time to selling value and product?
Part of the problem does not concern the method of calculating fees alone but the nature of the legal service itself; it is an intangible service, and turning it into something closer to a tangible product is not merely a matter of naming — it requires sound study of its structure, scope, and presentation.
In a later article, God willing, this idea can be addressed in more detail, explaining how some intangible legal services can be designed in a form closer to a tangible product in the client’s eyes.