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?

Wow I think employers need to be aware of the potential costs involved in these cases and tread carefully. This puts me off employing people tbh.

Its your lawyers and your previous employers I feel sorry for. People who have dealings with you, dont seem to come out well...

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.

Sorry but I think it's an excellent idea in principle, too many solicitors have made an absolute fortune by not playing by the rules, sending letters before the 15 and 90 day agreed deadlines pass just for the sake of being able to charge etc. I have heard of cases where the injured party has been awarded 10% of the amount the solicitor billed for, how is that fair ?
Many of these no win no fee companies have crippled the LEA's and NHS over the past 10 years, I hope they disappear altogether.
I doubt anyone will agree with me from the legal profession because turkey's don't typically vote for Christmas.

I had a case recently and I told my solicitor the maximum amount I would pay plus VAT of course (grumble). I got what I wanted for that amount andf was sayisfied. Always ask how much it's likely to cost and give a maximum that you are prepared to pay.

And don't leave your Wills with your solicitor. They are so easy to prove using official internet forms.

*satisfied

I must say I did that, I had £2,000 to spend on a matter and that was that, was told it would be fine. It was not fine the £2,000 was spent whilst he read the previous notes. What bollox, 4 hours to read notes, my 5 year is quicker than that.
Honestly I think more people will start picking up the books and doing it themselves, how hard can it be I wonder ?

An interesting one. The OP is obviously one of the very very small percentage of depression sufferers who decide that it's a good way of becoming extremely rich at their workplace's expense.

Undoubtedly she agreed to pay insane rates to a topflight legal firm (many if not most people represent themselves at employment tribunals, that is why costs are not awarded), because she thought the 200K she would pay them would be dwarfed by the 1 million plus that she would get as a payout. Of course, if you tell a lawyer that you want to pay them mad money to pursue a dubious claim, they are not going to tell you not to.

When she got a reality check and realized what the award was likely to be, she settled. Now she continues the pattern of holding others responsible for all her problems by blaming the entire legal profession.

Before you flame me, I suffer from severe depression. When I am depressed, I try to go to work. If I simply stopped going to work, I would expect to be sacked. It has never occurred to me that society should make me a millionaire, just because I'm depressed. Maybe try buying a lottery ticket next time?

There appear to be a handful of spiteful and ill informed individuals posting on this thread such as several of the ones immediately above. You know nothing about my case or my motives for bringing it, so why do you consider that you have the right to judge me?

My question was whether or not it is reasonable for lawyers to charge by the hour as, on the face of it, the longer a lawyer spends on a case the higher the bill will be ie this system rewards inefficiency.

I accept entirely that some cases turn out to be complicated and require more time spent on them than could have been anticipated at the outset. I also accept that there are some excellent lawyers in practice (sadly, mine were not among them!).

However, my question is a valid one. A significant proportion of complaints to the Legal Ombudsman concern overcharging and lack of transparency over costs. It is also true that a lot of people are prejudiced against lawyers and regard them as greedy.

why do you consider that you have the right to judge me?

I don't know, it could be the words "Am I Being Unreasonable" followed by a question mark at the top of the page?

DMAGA I have worked on complex cases on the HR side where employees have claimed all sorts of things relating to what are now various protected characteristics. Usually they have had interpersonal difficulties with a variety of managers and colleagues over a number of years. When cases come to tribunal it is not unusual for them to change lawyers two to three times before losing the case because they have interpersonal difficulties with their lawyers because perhaps the lawyers do not tell them what they want to hear.

It is very difficult not to be a little cynical.

arimaa, you are meant to read all of the post, not the first line!
Never mind dear, I hope you feel better soon.

marriedinwhite - my QC was going to give evidence for me in my negligence claim because he didn't think my solicitors had done their job properly, so I hope that allays your cynicism regarding the merits of my case.

OP, I've read some of this thread and I am rather by the numbers of lawyers that came on to hammer you!

I don't pretend to understand the legal ins and outs of your case - but how can lawyers lambast you for trying to take your employer to the cleaners when they are the ones facilitating people to do this??

I agree with your point that lawyers' fees are astronomical. It seems immoral to me to charge that kind of money for 'a phone-call', a 'discussion', etc. And I agree that the system is wrong in that the more inefficient they are at their research etc, the more they get paid.

Married - I try to avoid taking cases where clients have sacked their previous lawyers at all costs. Unless there was something very obviously wrong of course. I once got railroaded into becoming the fifth lawyer on a case and I have never come so close to giving up law!

Oh for heavens sake. If you don't like the fees - don't pay them. Go somewhere cheaper. Fees charged pay for a lot more than just one lawyer (including the stationery) and you are told what your lawyer charges in advance. The rest of the thread will tell you that.

Kungfu I hope the stapler situation has been resolved.

MamaMary actually the lawmakers are the ones facilitating people taking their employers to the cleaners, rather than the lawyers.