I. Introduction

For many clients, the most uncomfortable aspect of hiring a lawyer is not discussing the facts of their case, but understanding how legal fees work. This discomfort is understandable. Legal services are intangible, outcomes are uncertain, and litigation often arises during stressful moments in a client’s life or business. Yet attorney fee arrangements are neither arbitrary nor opaque by design. They exist to align expectations, allocate risk fairly, and ensure that lawyers can devote the time, resources, and professional judgment required to represent clients effectively.

This article explains several common fee arrangements used in complex civil litigation, including traditional hourly billing with a retainer, and hybrid or partial contingency arrangements involving a true retainer—sometimes referred to as a non-refundable minimum fee—combined with a percentage of any recovery. The goal is not to pressure clients, but to provide clarity. An informed client is better positioned to make sound decisions, and transparency about fees benefits both client and counsel.

II. Hourly Billing and the Retainer: The Traditional Model

The most familiar fee arrangement in civil litigation is hourly billing. Under this model, the attorney charges for time spent working on the client’s matter, typically in increments of tenths of an hour. The hourly rate reflects a variety of factors, including the attorney’s experience, the complexity of the legal issues, the stakes of the dispute, and the market in which the lawyer practices.

A. The Purpose of the Retainer

Hourly billing is almost always accompanied by a retainer. Contrary to popular belief, a retainer is not a flat fee for all work on a case. Rather, it is an advance payment that is placed into a trust account and applied to future legal fees as they are earned. As work is performed and invoices are issued, the retainer balance is drawn down. If the balance falls below an agreed threshold, the client may be asked to replenish it.

The retainer serves several legitimate purposes. First, it demonstrates the client’s commitment to the representation. Second, it allows the lawyer to begin work immediately without concern about delayed or disputed payment. Third, it helps ensure that the lawyer can allocate sufficient time and attention to the matter, particularly in litigation where deadlines and emergencies are common.

B. Client Control and Predictability

One advantage of hourly billing is transparency. Clients can see precisely how time is spent and retain a high degree of control over litigation strategy. Decisions such as whether to pursue aggressive motion practice, conduct extensive discovery, or engage experts directly affect legal fees. For clients who value predictability and ongoing involvement, hourly billing can be an appropriate and fair model.

III. Contingency Fees: Risk Shifting and Access to Justice

At the other end of the spectrum is the contingency fee arrangement, most commonly associated with personal injury and certain plaintiff-side cases. Under a pure contingency model, the lawyer is paid only if there is a recovery, typically as a percentage of the amount obtained through settlement or judgment.

Contingency fees shift much of the financial risk from the client to the attorney. They can provide access to legal representation for clients who might otherwise be unable to afford it. At the same time, they require the lawyer to invest substantial time and resources with no guarantee of compensation, which is why contingency percentages are often significant and why such arrangements are not appropriate for all cases.

IV. Hybrid Fee Arrangements: Partial Contingency with a True Retainer

In complex commercial and civil litigation, a growing number of cases are handled under hybrid fee arrangements. These models combine elements of hourly billing and contingency fees, balancing risk between client and counsel.

A. The True Retainer or Non-Refundable Minimum Fee

One common hybrid structure involves a true retainer, also called a non-refundable minimum fee, paired with a reduced contingency percentage. The true retainer is earned upon receipt. It compensates the attorney for committing to the representation, turning away other work, and undertaking the early strategic analysis and preparation that every serious case requires. Unlike an advance deposit for hourly fees, a true retainer is not placed in trust and is not refunded if the representation ends.

This arrangement is particularly common in cases where the outcome is uncertain, the litigation is expected to be intensive, or the client seeks highly experienced trial counsel. It recognizes that even before a case is filed—or regardless of how it ultimately resolves—the attorney’s time, expertise, and professional judgment have value.

B. The Contingency Component

In addition to the true retainer, the attorney receives a percentage of any gross recovery. Because the lawyer has already been compensated in part through the retainer, this percentage is often lower than in a pure contingency case. The contingency component aligns the lawyer’s incentives with the client’s success while ensuring that the lawyer remains financially able to litigate the case effectively.

C. Fair Allocation of Risk

Hybrid arrangements reflect a candid acknowledgment that litigation is inherently risky for both sides of the attorney-client relationship. The client contributes to the cost of representation upfront, and the lawyer shares in the risk by tying a portion of compensation to the outcome. When used appropriately, this model promotes mutual investment and realistic expectations.

V. Addressing Client Concerns About Paying Legal Fees

Clients sometimes worry that discussing fees diminishes the lawyer’s commitment to the case. In reality, the opposite is true. Clear fee agreements protect the relationship. They reduce misunderstandings, prevent resentment, and allow both client and counsel to focus on the merits of the dispute rather than financial uncertainty.

Paying for legal services is not a penalty; it is the mechanism that allows a lawyer to devote time, attention, and resources to a client’s matter. Litigation requires investigation, research, drafting, strategy, negotiation, and often courtroom advocacy. These efforts cannot be sustained without a fair and reliable compensation structure.

VI. Conclusion

There is no single “right” fee arrangement for every case or every client. Hourly billing with a retainer, pure contingency fees, and hybrid models each serve legitimate purposes depending on the nature of the dispute, the client’s goals, and the allocation of risk the parties are willing to accept.

What matters most is transparency. Clients deserve to understand how they will be charged and why. Lawyers, in turn, must structure fees in a manner consistent with professional ethics, economic reality, and respect for the client relationship. When fees are discussed openly and thoughtfully at the outset, they cease to be a source of tension and instead become part of a professional partnership focused on achieving the best possible outcome.