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?

"Palpable hostility is something I'm not intending to get used to."

I hope that wasn't aimed at me. I haven't been the least bit hostile, I have just posed a genuine question to you (which you clearly don't know the answer to). A bit ironic when you consider your earlier post, ?What I'd really like is some straight answers to some straight questions?.

The only answer you have been prepared to give to this straight (and not intentionally offensive) question is: ?You have reaffirmed my poor opinion of the legal profession? ? How? Why do you feel so offended by the notion that those paying the bill should be the judge of whether they are satisfied with the services they have received and that they represent good value for money?

You, on the other hand have said some very offensive and hostile things, including:

?It's precisely because you guys are so deluded about your inflated salaries that legal aid has been cut so severely.? (Not just offensive, but also ill-informed and plain wrong); and

?Earning £400 an hour is taking the mickey. It has no bearing on the value of their labour - they only charge it because they CAN. And generally that cost is paid for by the taxpayer. As a private client the money was going to come out of my pocket - most clients wouldn't really consider the costs because the LSC pays for it. 

At last the LSC rules have changed and solicitors have to take a good hard look at their practices.?
(Again, ill-informed and incorrect).

We don't earn £400 ph, what we charge ph and what we earn ph are completly difference.

My chargeout rate is £160ph. The most expensive people in the firm (senior partners, each with 40+ years experience each) charge at £225ph

As I frequently remind my favourite clients - I am a bargain

Does anyone have a view about the Jackson proposals?

My firm does a lot of Claimant work - mainly professional negligence - and we usually act under CFAs ('no win, no fee') backed up by ATE ('after the event insurance') policies. The current proposals - which appear likely to come into force next year - will require lawyers to deduct any success fee from the client's compensation, which doesn't seem very fair to me, and the success fee will be capped at a level where I suspect a lot of law firms won't be prepared to act under CFAs any longer. Also, the cost of any ATE policy (insurance against an adverse costs order which is pretty much essential before issuing proceedings, as litigation is risky) will have to be paid by the client, win or lose, whereas now it has to be paid by the losing party.

Doesn't this mean that a lot of people will be disbarred from justice, as if law firms are not prepared to act under CFAs any longer, who can afford the hourly fees referred to above, apart from the wealthy corporations, banks etc?

Perhaps I am biased, but it doesn't seem like progress to me.

Dolce the Jackson proposals are a massive crock of shit. I can't even begin to fathom them or in what twisted reality they are a good thing.

The only bit I agree with is banning referral fees, our firm never paid for work anyway.

I've been watching the thread but not contributing since ... er a few pages back.

I've learnt a lot and enjoyed the insight so thank you. I suspect it's like police, nhs and teachers. Post this sort of opener and you will get every disgruntled person posting their tales of woe (I did) and assuming this is representative of the whole profession, whilst not really understanding absolutely everything about the causes.

I'm glad I discouraged DD from entering law is all I can say :)

(In the NHS, staples are rationed from Feb onwards, felt tip pens are unheard of and other stationary has to be signed for...we have a common issue!)

Had a chat to DH last night. In perspective: what he brings in contributes towards: clerks, secretaries, office space and all other related expenditure (everyone has a hole punch,etc., but he has a thing about seeing 6 roller ball pens on people's desks that never seem to be used up!). Also, not every hour spent working is chargeable and a lot goes on in the background - meetings, mentoring, networking, accounts, that can't be charged. A lot can be delegated but that has to paid for too. It isn't just the lawyer that the hourly fees fund but also the surrounding infrastructure without which the fee earners could not operate.

Thanks married. It would make sense for lawyers to explain all this when they charge. And that explains why the big firms can charge £350 an hour - £250 goes on other staff/business running costs and because they can afford a trillion research people they win the cases.

Similar to tradesmen really - of the £200 a day for a plumber, £50 goes on running costs.

What teed me off about my solicitor was that I did most of the research for her - and then she charged me for the phonecalls/letters discussing it!

really? lawyers should explain this in a letter of retainer? i don't give a toss what my plumber spends his money on or what his profit margin is. i care whether he will do a good job in a timely fashion.

For some on this thread who have complained you need also to be aware that many excellent lawyers refuse work. DH cannot accept all the work he is offered - sometimes he will refer to a colleague; sometimes he does not feel the principles can be defended; sometimes he feels he cannot work with those who are not prepared to take his advice. However, he is in that position because he has built a reputation and tremendous expertise over 25 years. His rates aren't negotiable, he choses his work, people want him and are prepared to pay for his advice and for his experience.

So what you're suggesting basically (in amongst other things, but we'll leave aside that)

• in a retainer letter the lawyer should itemise how the hourly rate is spent e.g. £15 per hour for PA, building maintenance costs, subscription to Lexis Nexis
• should not charge for phone calls (where they listen to your case, and provide advice. Which is what lawyers do) or for drafting letters (e.g. setting out the advice provided, sending letters to the opposing side etc., depending on the type of case).

So I presume that when you go and get your hair cut, you ask for a detailed bill specifying exactly how your money is being spent, so £x on receptionist, £y on rental costs, £z on equipment?

I hope no one from the LSC is reading this and getting ideas. Our client care letter is already 5 pages long.....

to be fair though the letter of retainer we send does include some of this information, for example we explain that time spent by way of example includes time spent on travel, documentation, research, notes, telephone calles etc will be charged, and that we charge x pence per sheet photodopying and printing, and that we charge y to cover the bank charge of any financial transaction. I can see that we will shortly be adding in some of the other inforamtion, as we break our charges down already because we have to, and if the clients demand more we will also break that down too. The clients still won't read the terms though, they never do until they want to complain about the bill, then find they signed up to what we said.

That is so true hilda. I have often wondered how many clients actually read the client care letter even though they sign it.

Slightly different perspective, but some clients can be a total nightmare. I am in house, and as a favour to a friend, I gave some off the cuff advice re his redundancy situation....well never again. Ever. He was constantly calling me, and if I had been charging it would have escalated hugely. His firm paid for a lawyer for the compromise agreement and he still kept on calling and he though he knew best, and wanted me to back him up.

Sticking with in house, and agree with hilda and others.

Oh Lord, fedup - I know that one! I'm in house too and was asked by a friend of a friend to help with a matrimonial issue. I said I had no idea and referred her to the relationship board on here as a starting point. She still calls most days asking for advice!

In-house is definitely the way to go. We just need to avoid trying to help 'friends'.

there's a classic joke about that problem.

Doctor approaches his lawyer friend at a party. "i'm sure this happend to you too - i'm forever being collared by people i know socially and asked for professional advice. what should i do about it?"

"i always send them a bill, soon stops em." says lawyer.

"what a good idea! thanks."

next morning doc receives from lawyer "for legal advice - £50"

Very very tempting. Best case scenario is that she never speaks to me again!

In-house is great though. Interesting work, you can all in outside assistance when necessary, and there is limitless stationery. All in all, a very good thing.

Fedup & azazello - Oh I do so agree! But worse than acting for friends, acting for friends of the senior partner!

Not only do I have to agree a "special" (really low) fee, be extra careful with everything I do, have them ring and email everyday, but I have to provide him with daily updates and explain why I'm doing everything when he's second guessing me 'cos it's not his area of expertise! Aghhhhh!

I know a couple who had to go bankrupt due to loosing an unfair dismissal case.

My parents employ people in their business, and are of the opinion that nobody owns a job. When I was made redundant, I just took the money and walked away. So glad I did.

all professions tend to rip us off. As a great writer once said.

Using lawyers without legal aid is a bit like gambling really.

Yes, perhaps the straight term 'you may as well bet on a horse' would be a more people-friendly explanation.

All this does highlight the absurdity of privately paid cases - there is a disparity with right of access with those that aren't eligible for legal aid and those that are multi-billion dollar corporations who probably pay a similar amount and invariably win.

What do you think about the US system? What I understand of it, it would surely be better than this half-baked legal aid system?

Here's your soap box realhousewife.

Anyway, you are referring to litigation only cases, not transactional/non-contentious cases. Should these nasty large corporations be paying high charge out rates for lease renewals, mergers and pensions work?

Furthermore, these nasty big companies are taking each other to court for things Su h as breach of contract, intellectual property rights etc. Not your usual theft from the local Poundland, divorce type things.

Large firms do not really like taking on individuals due to the transactions being too low value, it's not cost effective for the client, conflicts if interest etc. No disparities unless a large firm (e.g. Deloitte) is divorcing Mrs. Jones etc.

Karma! Thanks to everyone who originally posted on this thread and I thought that you might like to know the final outcome. I have reached a resolution of my dispute with my former solicitors on terms which are confidential but which I am very happy with. This includes payment of my costs, which are now more than twice their original bill!