The Incentive Machine

When billing becomes the outcome

​

Inside many law firms, success isn’t measured by resolution. It’s measured by revenue. Targets are set by spreadsheets, and the unit that keeps everything moving is still, very often, the billable hour.

 

That isn’t necessarily corruption — it’s incentive design.

And incentive design shapes behavior.

​

When hours are the scoreboard, every letter, every call, every email, every “quick update”, every procedural step becomes a line item. Time stops being the background and becomes the product. Closure, in that world, can quietly become a cost.

 

The economics nobody says out loud

There’s a long-running “rule of thumb” discussed in the legal trade press: a fee-earner may be expected to bill around three times their salary to cover salary, overheads, and profit. It’s sometimes described as a benchmark that’s “especially” familiar in London, but the logic echoes across the profession.

Put simply: the machine stays healthy when the clock keeps turning.

​

And once you accept that, a lot of the system starts to make grim sense:

• more steps can mean more “work done”

• more correspondence can look like “progress”

• delay can be explained as “process”

• and a case that ends quickly can be, financially, an early stop on the production line

​

None of that proves anyone is trying to prolong anything. But it does explain why the incentives can lean that way

​

Bonuses: when hours become achievement

In recent years, UK legal press has openly reported bonus structures that reward high billing.

Examples include:

• Simmons & Simmons: reported bonuses of 25%–40% of base salary for associates recording over 1,800 billable hours, with the top end linked to substantially higher hours (reported at 2,100+).

• RPC: reported bonus schemes where hitting 1,575 total hours (including 1,500 billable plus up to 75 hours of “investment time” such as pro bono) triggers a base bonus, rising in increments for additional chargeable hours, up to a higher cap.

• Linklaters: reported changes aimed at moving away from chargeable-hours-led bonuses, after a system where hitting around 1,800 hours could yield a bonus of roughly 10% (alongside other factors).

​

These aren’t “gotcha” facts. They’re the point: the profession discusses them in public because they’re normal. And normal systems create normal behaviours.

When hours equal achievement, work expands to fill the space available — not always consciously, not always maliciously, but predictably.

​

Where families feel it

Family law isn’t City M&A. The money is different, the clients are different, the stakes are arguably higher. But the incentives can still rhyme.

 

In family work, the greatest misunderstanding is this: people assume court fees are the cost. Often, they aren’t.

 

For example, the UK government’s published family court fee list shows no court fee to apply for a non-molestation order (and also no fee for an occupation order).

 

So where does the cost land?

 

On representation.On drafting. On statements. On bundles. On hearing prep. On counsel. On adjournments. On “further instructions”.

​

​

Some firms advertise fixed-fee pricing for initial non-molestation work (which is good for transparency), but those same fee pages usually make clear that further hearings and contested stages cost more. A few examples of published pricing illustrate the range:

 

• £1,000 + VAT for non-molestation/occupation order work (example pricing page).

• £1,500 + VAT for issuing and representation at an initial hearing, with additional charges if the matter continues (example pricing page).

 

That’s not a criticism of those firms — it’s evidence of the wider truth: even where the court fee is zero, the process can still become financially crushing once it stretches.

 

“Not corruption — structure” (and why that distinction matters)

​

If you say “corruption”, the debate becomes personal: Are lawyers bad? Are judges bad? That argument goes nowhere fast.

 

Structure is different. Structure is measurable:

• How is work priced?

• What gets rewarded?

• What gets penalised?

• What happens when compliance (settlement, agreement, resolution) reduces billable time?

 

If a system rewards time spent more than outcomes achieved, it should not surprise anyone when “time spent” becomes the dominant feature.

 

My own line in the ledger

This is where the policy talk stops being abstract.

I paid £1,750 to defend an emergency application — around fifteen minutes of court time that cost more than a month’s rent.

And I’m now on my fourth set of C100 proceedings — each one circling the same core reality: trying to enforce what should have been settled, and trying to repair what repeated litigation breaks.

 

You don’t need to know every detail of my case to understand the pattern. The lived experience of many parents is this:

• you pay to respond

• you pay to correct the record

• you pay to ask the court to enforce

• and you pay again when “the process” becomes the outcome

 

A glimpse behind the slogan

​

Pepperell's markets itself with the words: “Your Partner for Life.

” It’s a strong line — and it may feel reassuring when you’re buying a house, writing a will, or dealing with a straightforward matter.

​

But in family conflict, it raises an uncomfortable question:

A partner for life…

 

but whose life? Because families don’t want a partner “for life”. They want a solution. They want a child’s time protected. They want stability. They want the fighting to stop.

 

What would a healthier system look like?

This isn’t about attacking individual solicitors. It’s about demanding structures that don’t quietly reward drift.

 

Some practical shifts that would change behaviour overnight:

1. Cost transparency that’s real, not performative Not just “our hourly rate is £X”, but clear stage-based estimates, with meaningful warnings about what triggers escalation.

2. Milestone billing (outcomes over hours) Fixed fees or capped fees for defined stages where possible — with incentives for early resolution rather than endless churn.

3. Early, enforceable case management Where a court order exists, the system should treat breach as urgent and consequential, not optional and slow.

4. Less theatre, more proof The faster allegations and counter-allegations are tested against evidence, the less profit there is in delay — and the less harm there is to children.

 

The point
When hours are rewarded, hours multiply.

When process is rewarded, process expands.

And when a system can make money from conflict, conflict becomes sticky.

 

Call it “the incentive machine”.

 

Note: This is a critique of incentive structures in hourly billing models and publicly reported bonus/ target systems — not an allegation of wrongdoing by any individual solicitor or firm. Bonus schemes and thresholds change over time.