For this week’s Guest Post Friday here at Construction Law Musings, we welcome Kevin B. Watson for the first time. Kevin is a partner with the Philadelphia Area law firm of Halberstadt Curley, LLC. Kevin is an engineer that ran out of ideas and went to law school, practicing as a Construction Lawyer since Reganomics was in vogue. His practice focuses on construction claims, professional liability, and risk management.
This is my first foray into Construction Law Musings. Many thanks to Chris for the opportunity share on a topic of current interest. Since the economy is at the forefront of everyone’s mind, it seems like an appropriate time to discuss the economics of the attorney-client relationship, and specifically in the context of construction claims.
One of our firm’s strengths is the ability to offer clients Alternative Fee Arrangements (“AFA’s”). If you go to our firm link on Alternative Fees you’ll see our philosophy and various alternatives to the billable hour. While AFA’s have been utilized in the legal community for many years, for some reason construction industry clients have been slow to adopt them. There are several reasons for this, not the least of which is the failure of construction clients to appreciate their unique ability as buyers of legal services to demand risk sharing and incentivized results in their attorney-client relationship.
Thinking through how to best drive home the benefit of AFA’s, I “mused” (sorry Chris) to an example of how relationships have traditionally developed in a billable hour context, borrowing a line and a character or two from a “Family” that is no stranger to tough solutions in hard times.
