What is a review worth against an adviser's hourly rate?
The commercial comparison is not "flat fee versus hourly rate" — it is what each one pays for, and who carries the risk of the search taking longer than expected. This article sets out how to compare a written review against an adviser's hourly rate on the same terms, and where the hourly model is still the better purchase.
What is a structured decision review worth?
A structured decision review is a written, independent analysis of one pending decision: four assessment dimensions, two or three scenario paths, and the list of what has to be evidenced before you commit.
Its commercial value is not that it is cheaper per hour. It is that the deliverable is defined before the fee is agreed, so the client knows what is being bought and the provider carries the risk of the work taking longer than expected.
That is the whole comparison in one sentence: an hourly engagement transfers the risk of scope to the client; a fixed-fee review keeps it with the provider.
What does an adviser's hourly rate actually buy?
A senior commercial adviser or an experienced lawyer in most major markets bills somewhere in the region of $300–600 per hour, and the meter starts before the useful work does.
- Reading and orientation — the documents, the correspondence, the history of the matter. Necessary, and billable.
- Formulating the question — working out what the decision actually depends on. Often the most valuable hour and the hardest to bound.
- The answer — the advice itself, which is what the client thought they were buying.
- Re-orientation — the same ground covered again when a new document appears or a party changes position.
None of those four is wasted. The commercial problem is that only the third one is what most clients believe they are paying for, and the other three are open-ended.
How does a fixed fee compare with an hourly engagement?
A written review versus an hourly engagement versus a retainer: three commercial models, and the differences show up in who carries which risk rather than in the headline number.
- Hourly — the client carries scope risk. The bill is unknown at the start, and the ceiling is discovered at the end.
- Retainer — the client carries commitment risk. The value depends on how many matters arrive inside the period.
- Fixed-fee review — the provider carries scope risk. One matter, one written output, one price agreed before the work begins.
An hourly rate is not the more expensive model; it is the less certain one. Where the scope cannot be written down in advance, that uncertainty is the honest price of the work. Where it can be — one decision, one memo — the uncertainty is avoidable.
What is the commercial case for a fixed fee?
The case rests on three numbers rather than on rates. First, the hours a decision actually consumes: a single structural question can absorb two or three billable hours before any advice is produced.
Second, the delivery window. A written review is delivered within 48 hours of a completed intake on the standard tiers and within 24 hours on the expedited tier, with the Written Brief at 72 hours — measured in hours rather than in billable time.
Third, the cost of the decision unravelling. If a condition that should have been written into the agreement is discovered after signature, the correction costs multiples of any advisory fee, and that cost is not negotiable because it is paid to a third party.
Where does the hourly model still win?
It wins in four situations, and saying so is part of giving a straight comparison.
- Open-ended work — negotiation, litigation or a transaction that genuinely has no defined end.
- Ongoing presence — a matter that needs someone in the room repeatedly over months, not a single written answer.
- Privilege — where the work must sit with your lawyer because of what it is, not because of what it costs.
- Undefined scope — where neither side can honestly write down what the deliverable is, so a fixed fee would be guesswork priced as certainty.
How do you compare the two on the same terms?
- Step 1 — Write the deliverable in one sentence. If it cannot be written in one sentence, the hourly model is the honest one, and the fixed-fee model would be mispriced.
- Step 2 — Convert the hourly estimate into a range, not a number. Ask for a low and a high figure for the whole matter, and ask what would move it.
- Step 3 — Put both against the same decision. A fixed fee for one written review compared with an hourly engagement should be compared on the same single decision, not on the engagement's total potential.
- Step 4 — Count what you would still have to buy afterwards. If the cheaper option still leaves you paying for the search, it is not the cheaper option.
What does a review cost, and what does it include?
The Written Brief is $197 for one decision in writing. The Single Decision Review is $380 for one matter with no sub-questions, four assessment dimensions, two or three scenario paths and one follow-up exchange. The expedited tier is $580 for the same memo delivered within 24 hours.
Five reviews cost $1,520, used over six months at $304 per review. Every engagement is delivered in writing over WhatsApp — there is no call to schedule, and no hourly clock running against you.
Put against the $300–600 hourly bands above, the comparison is not about being inexpensive. It is that the fee is agreed before the work begins, and the output is a document you can act on.
What should a commercial comparison leave out?
It should leave out any claim about what the decision will produce. A comparison of costs is legitimate; a comparison of outcomes is a forecast sold as analysis, and it is not something a fee can be attached to honestly.
It should also leave out the false precision of an hourly estimate presented as a fixed number. Where a range is what is known, a range is what should be quoted.
Which public references support this comparison?
Two references are worth knowing. The work on decision quality at Harvard Business Review sets out why process — assumptions, alternatives, information, downside — is where decision quality is determined, which is what a scoped review is built to examine. Where an arrangement crosses borders, the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts and the ICC's model contract material (iccwbo.org) tell you which questions are standard enough that your adviser should already have a settled answer.
Why there is no forecast in this article
Nothing above depends on knowing what a decision will produce. The Good Judgment Project (gjopen.com) spent years testing whether forecasting skill survives measurement, and the fact that such testing is necessary is the argument against selling a client a probability. What can be compared is cost, scope and delivery — and those are the three things this article compares.
Questions people ask (FAQ)
Why is a fixed fee cheaper than an hourly adviser?
Because the work is bounded. A review answers one decision with a named scope, so the fee can be set before the work starts. An hourly engagement is billed for the search as well as the answer.
Is a consultant ever the better commercial choice?
Yes — where the work is open-ended, ongoing, or requires a person in the room over months. An hourly rate is rational when the scope genuinely cannot be written down in advance.
Does a review replace an adviser?
No. It is usually what you buy before you spend the adviser's time: it names what the decision depends on, so the metered hours are spent on the answer rather than on the search.
