Value, Trust & the Billable Hour: Jonathan Safran on Rethinking the Economics of Legal Work
- Cosmonauts Team
- Mar 9
- 4 min read
Hourly billing has dominated legal for decades, but cracks are beginning to show. Clients want more. Firms are feeling the pressure. And yet, meaningful change remains frustratingly out of reach.
Jonathan Safran, Director of Pricing and Client Value at Polsinelli, knows exactly why, and more importantly, what it takes to move the needle. A seasoned expert in legal pricing strategy and client value, Jonathan has built his career on navigating the delicate balance between what clients want to pay and what firms need to sustain.
At Texas Trailblazers, he joins Panel 3 - "Billing on Trial: Rethinking the Economics of Legal Work" on Day 1: Legal Ops Day. Before he takes the stage, he sat down with us to share what the industry keeps getting wrong, and what the path forward actually looks like.
1. In your view, what is the single biggest misconception that law firm partners have about value‑based pricing, and how do you try to correct it?
JS: Every year, partners look at rates and wonder how the market can continue to bear these increases, and they often assume it’s a firm‑level decision to keep leaning on hourly billing instead of moving more aggressively toward value‑based pricing. In my experience, the hesitation actually comes more from the client side than from partners. Even when clients say they want AFAs, many still ask us to shadow bill so they can see how the performance tracked against a fixed fee.
When you buy a car, you don’t expect to see the time entries of everyone on the assembly line along with their hourly rates and then reconcile that to the sticker price, but in legal we’ve normalized that level of scrutiny because we want to be good partners and maintain transparency. One way I’ve seen progress is through micro fixed fees, where the value is clear and immediate. For example, if a client needs a same‑day email response, a $3,000 fixed fee makes sense - not because of the time it takes, but because of the speed, certainty, and reduced friction the client is actually paying for.
2. What do you think is the most honest answer to why alternative fee arrangements haven't become the industry standard despite decades of client demand for them?
JS: One honest answer is that the value of legal deliverables can be difficult to measure, which often leads clients back to requests for shadow billing, and once you do that, it undermines the core idea of value‑based pricing. If I agree to review an employee handbook for $10,000 and ultimately confirm that it already aligns with best practices, the client may struggle to feel good about that spend because there’s no tangible “output” to point to, even though the risk mitigation itself has real value.
On the firm side, estimating fees is also challenging because of the variability in how lawyers work. Some attorneys rely heavily on partner time to produce outcomes they’re confident in, while others are comfortable leveraging associates even if it’s less efficient in the short term. As a result, three partners at the same firm might manage the same project three very different ways. We can encourage best practices and identify efficiencies, but ultimately, partners own the client relationship - and clients themselves vary in whether they want partner‑heavy involvement or are comfortable with more junior staffing. All of that creates a lot of moving parts that make standardization difficult.
3. Beyond efficiency, do you think AI will change the nature of what clients consider valuable in legal work, and how might that reshape pricing philosophy fundamentally?
JS: I think pricing still starts with listening to what the client actually needs and structuring an agreement that reflects that need, and I don’t think AI fundamentally changes that philosophy. The nature of the work will evolve, and the mix of lawyers doing the work will change, but clients will still want to feel confident that what they’re paying for is something they can understand, measure, and justify internally.
Our role is to help clients articulate what they truly value - whether that’s speed, price certainty, risk reduction, or even something as blunt as “everyone else is giving me a 15% discount.” From there, we work to meet that expectation in a way that’s fair to the client while managing risk for the firm. AI may change how the work gets done, but it doesn’t eliminate the need for thoughtful pricing conversations or for aligning expectations on both sides.
4. What advice would you give to a young professional who wants to build a career in legal pricing and client value? What skills do you think are going to matter most in five years that aren't taught anywhere today?
JS: Learn how to speak with confidence and be accountable. I often joke that pricing teams will never win firm popularity awards because we’re one of the few groups that can tell a partner “no.” We’re not a function that simply executes requests - we’re expected to stop, evaluate, and respond thoughtfully.
I coach my team to see themselves not as back‑office support, but as trusted advisors to attorneys. While math, Excel, and data skills are absolutely critical, what often gets overlooked is the ability to communicate insights clearly and help attorneys navigate the most sensitive issue in any client relationship: money. We don’t want to be seen as a roadblock, a speed bump, or a rubber stamp. The real value comes from being a strategic ally - someone who can help partners assess RFPs, understand client motivations, and support long‑term relationship building, not just rate setting.
Jonathan's perspective cuts through the noise with rare honesty: the shift to value-based pricing isn't simply a matter of firm will, it's a deeply complex negotiation between client expectations, attorney behaviour, and the challenge of quantifying legal value itself.
What stands out is his conviction that pricing professionals must be far more than number-crunchers; they must be strategic allies who can hold difficult conversations, push back with purpose, and help build the kind of client relationships that outlast any single engagement.
As he takes the stage at Texas Trailblazers for "Billing on Trial: Rethinking the Economics of Legal Work," Jonathan challenges the industry to stop treating pricing as an afterthought - and start recognising it as one of the most powerful levers for long-term firm success.
Comments