1. AFAs and Managing Them Profitably With Engage

2. The Demand for AFAs – CLO Perspective CLOs’ first choice for change in law firm services was improved budget forecasting, followed by greater cost reduction, more efficient project management and non-hourly based pricing structures 78.5% of CLOs negotiate price reductions from outside counsel to control costs Pricing preferences (four options offered) – 36.4% of CLOs said they wanted ‘transparent pricing – 33% chose ‘guaranteed pricing’ – 20.3% of CLOs preferred ‘value-based pricing’ – Only 9.6% say they wanted the ‘lowest price’ available The source for this slide is the Altman Weil 2013 Chief Legal Officer Survey released in October 2013. http://www.altmanweil.com/CLO2013/http://www.altmanweil.com/CLO2013/

3. Demand for AFAs – Law Firm Perspective The Source for this slide is the Peer Monitor 2014 Snap Client Survey. Question: What do you expect to happen for each of the listed billing methods in 2014?.

4. Common Types of AFAs Contingent or Success Fee Fixed or Flat Fee Task or Unit-Based Billing Percentage Fee Retrospective Fee Based on Value Statutory or Other Scheduled Fee Systems

5. Hybrid AFAs Blended Hourly Rate Fee Collars Fixed Fee Plus Hourly Fixed Fee Plus Success Fee Hourly Rate Plus Contingency

6. AFA Real Life Examples Cisco Systems - bundle of routine matters bid for fixed fees Tyco - annual flat fee basis for products liability Levi’s – fixed fee worldwide representation by one law firm Pfizer – use of preferred providers National real estate practice – customized fees by industry CMS Cameron McKenna – client offer The source for the previous three slides is an article - Marketing Alternative Fee Arrangements by Mark A Robertson published in the magazine Legal Practice by the American Bar Association in October of 2011.

7. Engage 1.17April 2014 Scope Changes –Extend to all Budget Types, Disbursements & 3 rd Parties –Historical Scope Change Report tracks individual, commented change sets Portfolios/Multi-matter Reporting –Create ad hoc portfolio, containing matters from multiple clients, practice groups, etc. –Robust search and save of report set ups & filters for regular reporting What If’s –Extend to type 2 matters –Preserve original budget after adopting what if scenario –Print option for individual scenarios or side-by-side view with original –Fixed Fee Modification on Phase/Task/Subtask Level

8. Engage 1.17April 2014 Collars –Ability to specify incentive pricing with rewards and penalties –Phase/Task Trending Report predicts profitability from current performance Security –Single Sign-on / Windows Authentication –View Matters access removed in favor of separate View All Matters & View My Matters roles for greater administrative flexibility Budgeted & Actual Discount % –Compares Final Rate to Standard Rate Budgeting Flexibility –Change Budget Level Detail – Matter type 1 to 2, 2 to 1

9. Engage 1.17April 2014 Usability/Efficiency –Summary Bars in Phase | Plan Display Hourly Budget, % Complete (Roll Up & Propagate Down) & Complete Dates (Display Last in Phase/Task/Subtask) –Resource Duplication on Clone –Phase/Task/Subtask Renaming within a Budget –Improvements to Match | Estimates workflow (layout, font sizes, etc.) –When creating estimates from unmatched matters, autoload Data Fields from the FMS Matter (Practice Group, Matter Type, Billing Arrangement) –Increase Field Length to 512 for Phase/Task/Subtask Descriptions and Details –On the Portfolio screen, we display matter numbers & we have a new graph viewer that lets us page through multiple years. –New Color Scheme

10. ENGAGE 1.17 DEMONSTRATION Dawn Haberlach