To think that lawyers should not charge by the hour?

[DMAGA]

I have recently been represented in an unfair dismissal case by a firm of lawyers who told me that they could help me and then did f* all. The partner charged £400 per hour, his assistant £250 per hour, the consultant £350 per hour and then I was charged for all of them having 'discussions' about my case. They ran up a bill of £200k without achieving anything and, because my case was in the Employment Tribunal, the Tribunal would not have awarded me my costs even if the matter had gone ahead to trial and i had won (which would have cost me another £300k). In the end, I sacked them and reached a satisfactory agreement with my employer on my own, but all of my settlement monies have been spent on paying my lawyers. What other jobs are remunerated by the hour which means, in effect, the more inefficient you are and the longer you take to do the job, the more you will get paid. It's bonkers, isn't it? Does anyone actually like lawyers? Don't they just thrive on other people's misfortunes?

x-posted

We have fought to keep legal aid law going because:

1. we believe it is necessary and right that it should exist
2. we are at a point as a profession where we can barely afford to keep doing it - any more cuts and we won't be able to keep going.

It isn't profitable - firms are desperately treading water, and have been for some time, in the hope that the LSC/government will come to its senses in time to prevent the complete collapse of the legal aid system.

And see my previous post - there is only so long that any of us can "fight the good fight". There is no more moral burden on us to fund this failing system out of our own personal pockets than there is for you to do it. If I can't earn enough to cover my personal costs then I will quit. If my firm can't earn enough to pay its staff then it will close. Simple as that.

And finally - I am a criminal legal aid laywer. That is what I am trained to do. I can't just say "oh well, legal aid is rubbish, I will go and be a corporate lawyer instead".

For people like me, the "insulting rates" we are fighting to save represent our only means to keep doing the job we are trained to do.

Realhousewife - honestly then, because I am interested to know, what would you do I my position? How can I make the situation fairer to the general public and my partners and me?

I am snowed under with work. I can't charge any more, as my clients simply could not afford it or would bot be happy paying it. They need solicitors - I have had two clients in tears in my office this morning, and these clients need the service we provide.

I have staff to pay, who are also, frankly, overworked. I have overheads, including indemnity insurance.

We do not want to quit. We feel we provide a valuable service, which tescos, etc, simply could not provide.

And I know it's not just us. I am in a town where every single high street firm is in the same position.

I'm sorry I should be replying to individuals here, posters are saying different things here.

What is the rate for legal aid btw? Perhaps that will focus us back to the title of the thread?

Another question - do you think insurance companies are squeezing harder? Wouldn't a fight against them be the best course of action as they seem to be your main expense?

It is depressing for all of us. I can imagine work being tendered out to firms in India in the future... but fighting the right people is the only way things will change. Divide and conquer seems to be working well here - set up by big business and by politicians.

I'm really not sure what you could do vpl - why were your clients in tears - because they couldn't get legal aid or because they couldn't afford the fees - and from what you've said, insurance is the thing that is putting you under most pressure. Some kind of negotiation with the insurance firms?

Can I just ask the OP how she ot insurance to pay the costs? was this household insurance or insurance for the case?
thanks

Have come to this thread very late which is a shame as could have done with some light entertainment yesterday.

One of my first thoughts was disbelief that you could have run up such a bill without realising it. Surely you would have been given a client care letter and terms and conditions etc when you first instructed the firm? You would have also have had regular updates regarding costs. As others have said, Employment Tribunals are, with help and assistance relatively easy for one to act in person so was there really a need for you to instruct a partner?

You make sweeping statements about lawyers, how they are disliked and thrive on other peoples misfortunes. You then, and this is the classic bit, finally disclose/claim that you were once a Barrister! Really?

real - don't worry, I didn't make them cry! They were both crying because they were dicussing distressing personal matters with me. I was explaining a bill to one of them, which seemed a lot to her, but I have actually charged her a third of the the total time I have spent on her case.

I just want people to understand many lawyers do valuable job, don't get paid anywhere near as much as people seem to think, and our overheads are huge.

In our case, we have been able to reduce our indemnity premium by half compared to two years ago, otherwise I think we would have been out of business by now.

I'm retiring from this thread now, and going back to my usual MN name. Too depressing:)

verypoor you are right, it is very depressing. I feel quite sad knowing that DC1 has just started reading law, something he has wanted to do for at least 4 years. It is sad knowing that he will be spending at least 6 years of his life and a considerable amount of money to try to get into a very competitive career only to be hated by thousands

Thanks for answering my questions verypoor. I agree it must be very demanding work. I used to do family support work and find it's too stressful, I know what you mean.

From what you say the 'charge out rate' is actually negotiable depending on the client. It would help lawyers public image no end if they offered a sliding scale to begin with.

Wrong again realhousewife - it would appear that veryverypoorlawyer had written off mist of her costs on the case thus charging one third if the original cost.

I still think you are bidding the points that numerous of posters have made already which is that insurance is simply one cost which is squeezing the legal aid part if the profession. Overheads in large firms (talking over 50 partners) can easily absorb the costs that small firms cannot as their charge out rates are higher. Conversely though, they have for a very significant number of support staff to pay.

In relation to what you were saying upthread regarding your complete disbelief of chargable hour fees to solicitors TH pay, you must consider the ratio of hourly rate to size of the firm and access to resources. As African said, the subscription fees to Lawtel, Westlaw etc. are very expensive, prone location premesis do not cone cheap and all these thinks tare putting pressure on firms' bottom line. Just look at Halliwells and you'll realise that mu firm us recession proof.

That said, it sounds to me that you are anti-anyone who has the ability to put in many years of hard work at uni, fork out huge fees for LPC's, try to get a training contract, be a dogsbody for 2 years whilst training to qualify and be treated again like they ought to be married to their job until they have scrabbled enough pennies together to retire ir leave. Law can be a hugely thankless profession and many lawyers who are worth their weight in gold are putting in the hard yards for a firm profit they will see a fraction of. It would be nice if you would realise that most lawyers are jolly decent, hardworking folk with families to feed, just like you, and not a bunch of rich pricks.

For you lawyers out there, the Rule of Third is more like the Rule of Fifth with todays billing targets and gross wage.

Bloody predictative text :)

LOL, it is like reading the script for 'allo allo' reading your post

I'm not anti-anyone. Why do I feel I'm being lectured to like an errant teenager? I could rant and rave like anyone else but I choose not to.

It is quite clear and I have said so, that lawyers are having a really hard time. My question and the question of this thread is WHY? This is hard to unpick when so many of the posts are either defensive, or attack me for asking the question.

We were getting close to the answer - the implications of withdrawal of legal aid - and then I was told that legal aid isn't worth much anyway. Then it was insurance - some of you have halved your costs. Then it was pensions - the fat cats in the big firms taking big payoffs. So we are getting somewhere - or are we?

I will rally, and have indeed rallied in support of Justice for All, I'm only on this thread because I have personally been affected by both unscrupulous lawyers and unscrupulous systems.

If this is a thread for lawyers only, I will gladly leave. You may have noticed that I'm the only non-lawyer left showing any interest or will to discuss this.

Edit - Para.2 - WHY the chargeout rates are so high.

This is not a thread for lawyers only and don't think anyone has said it was

realhousewife Given my experience I have a rough idea as to how things should work. It didn't seem right to me so I reported my experience to the law society. When I didn't get a reply I went to the MP in the area where the case was heard (Frank Field who was ace and should be PM) and he chased up, got some answers and effected change. The unfortunate part of the story is that my case comes up when anyone searches my name. Rather annoying having to explain this to US immigration and employers. However, I am willing to overlook this in the name of improving the system.

As I have said before and will say again, we are very lucky to have the legal system that we have. It isn't perfect but it is a lot better than the alternatives. Legal aid is very important as it allows access to legal redress no matter the financial status of the individual. In my opinion, this is what sets us apart from being a 3rd world country.

Also, with regards to billing I knew exactly how much my fees were because I had my solicitor email me a spreadsheet with billed hours on a weekly basis plus expense reports on a monthly basis (after they were processed). Why the OP wasn't doing this is beyond me. I guess the OP has not dealt with lawyers before which is shocking given the large payout indicating a high salary.

[beats head against desk]

You are getting different answers from different people because you are throwing out all sorts of random comments and questions that relate to all sorts of different issues and areas of the profession.

If you want to discuss legal aid and its particular problems, some of us are clearly in a position to do so. If you want to discuss the bar, some people on this thread are in a position to respond. If you want to discuss "big business" lawyers, again there are people who can respond. Same applies to the high street firms.

But all your posts are mixing up all sorts of different issues and when someone answers one of them you pick up the response and tie it in to a different issue altogether. It makes a proper discussion extraordinarily difficult.

And you keep saying people are defensive - of course they are. You have made attacking comments - people are defending themselves.

Wanttobesupermum - re: your last sentence.

I guess you didn't see the OP's later post where she admits that she WAS a lawyer!

Kungfu No - I am subject to breaking down my life into 6min increments, just as you do, and I don't have time to read every single post!

I guess the reason for her termination of employment was legit. If she is a lawyer she should know how she would be billed! Sounds like someone didn't make partner, wasn't good enough for the Director title and was pissed. Thanks for setting back the progession of women in the workplace OP.

MOSagain - no executive desk, but I do have a spare, old desk shoved against the wall in my office so I can pile stuff on it. I could make room for you to bang your head on that one if you like....

Oh lawyers are treated so much better than accountants. I have a cubicle 'wall' which is this funny foam, covered in fabric that smells funky.

kungfu that would be fab, be a dear and leave a spare time recording sheet and pen on it to or is everyone doing it online now? (MOS wonders if reading various intelligent comments on this thread could count as CPD>

Ooh, get you and your funny-smelling foam! We poor lawyers don't get foam.

We have a very swish set-up - we have a front door that always smells of wee and an office converted out of above-shop flats. As a result it has the most impractical layout known to man.

The only reason I have a spare desk is that every now and again someone's room gets so full of crap old files that they move piles of stuff into a different room. When I was last on maternity leave, everyone moved all their unwanted stuff into my room and I have never got rid of it. There is a pile of boxes taller than me in the corner that I have never properly investigated after I opened the top one and found some flowery curtains, a stockpot and a cheese-grater. I figured I just didn't need to know.

So I have 2 desks, 4 chairs, a printer that doesn't work, a filing cabinet that doesn't open and what appears to be the contents of someone's kitchen. Occasionally I wander into reception and threaten to bin the lot if someone doesn't claim it but everyone knows I don't have a big enough bin.