The Client Who Wants a Flat Fee on a Matter Nobody Has Scoped
A long-standing client (about 18% of firm revenue) asks you to take on a commercial contract dispute on a flat fee of $45,000, 'like last time.' Last time was a similar dispute that the firm handled for $45,000 - but it settled early. This one involves two contracts, an out-of-state defendant, and a client contact who has already emailed four times in week one. Your standard hourly estimate for comparable matters ranges $60k–$110k depending on discovery. The client says the flat fee is a condition of the engagement and hints they are talking to another firm. The relationship partner wants to say yes to protect the 18%.
1. Evaluate the flat-fee request. What are the financial and relationship risks of accepting it as proposed?
Read the worked answer
Financial risk: the $45k anchor came from an early-settling matter; this one has more contracts, an out-of-state defendant (more jurisdiction/procedural work, travel, local counsel), and a high-touch client. The realistic range is $60k–$110k, so $45k could mean a $15k–$65k loss before considering the client's email volume. Flat fees also shift all overrun risk to the firm - and this matter has more overrun triggers than the anchor case.
Relationship risk: saying yes at a loss sets a precedent ('$45k like last time') that will govern the next matter too, and it teaches the client that the number is negotiable downward under pressure. It also creates internal resentment if the matter blows the budget and someone has to eat it. The 'they're talking to another firm' hint is real leverage, but conceding price alone doesn't fix scope - it just buys a loss.
The core problem: the client is buying a price, but the firm hasn't defined scope. A flat fee without a scope boundary is an open-ended liability.
2. Propose a response that protects the relationship without accepting unbounded risk.
Read the worked answer
Separate price from scope and give the client a real choice:
- Scope it first. Define deliverables, assumptions (e.g., one round of written discovery, no trial, limited travel), and explicit exclusions. Attach a written scope document to any fee.
- Offer tiered options:
- Option A: $45k flat for a defined, limited scope (e.g., through motion to dismiss / early settlement evaluation), with a defined change-order process if it expands.
- Option B: $45k base plus hourly or a success fee above a defined threshold.
- Option C: capped hourly at a number the firm can live with (e.g., $75k cap).
- Address the high-touch contact: set communication expectations (e.g., a weekly status call, responses within one business day) so email volume is managed, not absorbed.
- Protect the relationship: acknowledge the history, explain that this matter's facts differ (two contracts, out-of-state), and show the client the scope - clients accept higher numbers when they see what they're buying.
This keeps the 18% relationship while refusing the unbounded loss. If the client still insists on $45k with open scope, that is a decision for the relationship partner to make knowingly, with the expected loss documented.
3. If the relationship partner overrides you and accepts $45k open-scope, what controls would you put in place?
Read the worked answer
If the business decision is made, manage it like a risk, not a favor:
- Written acknowledgment: document the expected loss and the scope assumptions internally so the decision is on record.
- Budget tracking: assign a matter budget and a monthly WIP-vs-fee review; flag at, say, 60% of fee consumed.
- Scope guardrails: a change-order clause and a written list of what triggers renegotiation (second contract, trial prep, out-of-state travel).
- Time discipline: require timekeeping even on flat fee so the firm knows its true cost and can price the next matter correctly.
- Relationship review: treat it as a loss-leader only if there's a credible path to profitable future work - and say so explicitly, or it's just a loss.
- Post-mortem: at closing, compare actual cost to fee and feed the result into the next negotiation.