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?

Kungfu People do need to take personal responsibility for their choices as to the type of firm they instruct.

Whilst I agree with this, I'd say that the ordinary man on the street does not appreciate the differences in firms/costs and understand the 'supervision' they may need (or are allowed) to progress their case. Initially I was overawed by the legal teams and assumed I was a passive partner (and expected to be one)

realhousewife you are missing (despite it being pointed out several times on this thread) that the lawyer working for you does not receive the hourly rate the firm charges for them. A solicitor working in a legal aid or high street firm earns around 25k to 40k per annum. Hardly inflated for a minimum of six years training.

Has anyone noticed that people who end up going to lawyers tend to be very vexatious.

FWIW our family solicitors are exceptionally helpful and DH who is a different sort of lawyer praises them every time they do something. DH's view is that if you want a good job done, you have to be prepared to pay the price particularly in relation to conveyancing. It is also our view that if you treat people well, they do a good job for you.

I'm an HR Manager and am only too well aware of how much an organisation has often done to help employees but regrettably there are those who vex by nature and those who vex to cover up competence issues and those who appear to make a profession of litigation because they think they will make more than getting on with it. Where there are genuine problems, we can usually sort them out internally and where mistakes have been made a reasonable compromise can usually be reached with sensible employees.

I understood that from the 1st February 2011 the maximum possible award in "normal" unfair dismissal cases increased from £76,700 to £80,400 (ie £68,400 plus 30 X £400).

So why on Earth you allowed yourself to rack up a bill of 200K is beyond me. Buyer beware!

You must have known what the lawyers were charging - did you not have a look around I presume their very plush offices and sense from their entitled lifestyles that people like you put their children through private schools?

Perhaps there were discrimination issues?

I agree that what lawyers charge is ridiculous, but then what lots of services charge is ridiculous.

And yes often in cases the only people to win from awful situations are lawyers but that is just how it is, we live in an increasingly litigation focussed society. Some lawyers are very valuable but if people looked at the low awards generally paid out in employment cases they would think twice about employing lawyers.

Has anyone noticed that people who end up going to lawyers tend to be very vexatious.

There is something in this. When I was doing my family seat I overheard one of the associates on the phone to a client of hers. She had rung up because the soon to be ex H had taken some towels out of the airing cupboard when he came to collect his stuff. She wanted letters fired off to his solicitors about it by fax and email. The sol was gently pointing out that it would be cheaper to buy some more towels but the client was determined. As soon as any client starts talking about "the principle of the thing" you know 1) they are going to be a nightmare 2) they are going to complain about the fees run up because of their conduct.

Has anyone noticed that people who end up going to lawyers tend to be very vexatious.

I take issue with this in regards to my situation. I have reached the grand age of 45 without recourse to sols. The reason I required advice, was forced on me by a vexatious individual and I wished to minimise my costs, losses and fight.

Arguing when the work was done incorrectly - what would you do if you bought a dress and it fell apart? Do you think I should have just paid and accepted this?

Your generalisation would be similar to me saying all sols are crap money grabbing individuals.

I think this is all a load of crap.

OP you posted about how pissed off you were, then posted later the same day saying you had now been compensated. You've also not answered one question posed to you.

Unless you're the actual king of the world, that just wouldn't happen.

What Georgimama said. I remember being a trainee in a contentious seat and my supervising partner saying to a client concerned about 'the principle', 'the trouble with principles is that they cost money'.

However I do agree that some people use sols to argue a stupid point rather than accept a compromise

Gawd knows why.

I would often accept a loss rather than endure litigation.

To make the sweeping statement that all your customers are very vexatious doesn't say a lot about the way your profession is heading

kungfupanda has written the best post on this thread but those of you who are determined to see lawyers as "evil" have just chosen to ignore her.

Gps earn 3 times as much as the average solicitor-do you call them greedy? Perhaps you would if you knew what they charge lawyers when they are asked to comment on a clients case. Believe me gp's do nowt for free!! So perhaps direct your ire some where else eh?

Kungfu with another excellent post

pink4ever

Really?

What does the average GP charge by the hour then?

realhousewife £350/hr is normal for lawyers I instruct, at least senior level. Junior tends to be about £250/hr. I assume people who choose to be labourers chose not to qualify as lawyers. It is a job that is open to everyone who wants to do it so I'm not sure why you are comparing labourers to lawyers?

"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."

Well I've been practising for a decade now and the taxpayer has not paid a single penny of my fees. I often work like a slave (my post at 5pm yesterday was made from the office) and cancel my social life for the good of my clients. I postponed my honeymoon to a week after my wedding because a client had a deadline that week. I work as efficiently as I can so my clients get good value when they engage me. My clients are usually playing for very high stakes and my fees are a piss in the ocean compared to the value of what they are fighting about. So they get good value for my labour. I'm not a saint and I am well-rewarded for my hard work (although I only receive a fraction of what the firm gets for an hour of my work), but I do get rather sick of the demonisation of lawyers.

eurochick I wouldn't be bothered about the ranting posts on this thread. I don't consider their views to be representative of the clients I have. Same as you, no taxpayer has ever paid my fees and most people wouldn't actually understand what I do for a living!

I am upset but not wholly surprised by the hostility towards me by certain posters on this thread. My question was whether or not it is reasonable for lawyers to charge by the hour. I have resolved my issues with my lawyers, at least from a financial point of view, but that does not stop me for feeling disillusioned and let down. It is not appropriate for me to dislose further details of my case in circumstances where there has been a settlement, as all of you lawyer posters should be aware.
What is interesting is the range of responses and it is clear that the legal profession is itself very divided. There are those who are happy to do some good in their community and help their clients, even if the financial rewards are not marvellous now that Legal Aid has been cut back. And then there are those who are arrogant enough to consider that they should charge whatever they can get away with: £400 is a weekly wage for a lot of people FFS.

I've had some dealings with solicitors. Not because I'm vexatious, but because I've been through a divorce and needed advice, sold two houses and made a will. Two solicitors stick in my mind for the help they gave.

I needed legal advice about my divorce, and had a discounted half-hour appointment for £40 with the first solicitor. He told mehis normal rates were £125 an hour (this was a local firm, and over a decade ago) and if we went over the half hour that's what he'd charge,and put a timer on his desk. 28 minutes later we were done.

A solicitor at the same firm was doing the conveyancing on the house exH and I owned. ExH was abusive and kept putting obstacles in the way. The solicitor persuaded him to sign the contract without any fuss, and the conveyancing cost me exactly what had been quoted. I am extremely grateful to that man, because he helped me move on with my own life.

The first guy I dealt with while buying my first house was an absolute rude arse, who I had to chase for everything. I don't blame all lawyers for his unprofessional conduct.

"£400 is a weekly wage for a lot of people FFS"

Exactly. Not everyone can be a lawyer. Not everyone can sit through a degree, fight it out for a training contract, the LPC and then train for 2 years, pulling massive all-nighters and sleeping at the office over the weekend. It is called basic supply and demand laws.

Do you have ANY idea how much training (not just the two years, but professional conduct, accounting, advocacy, skills) and exams a lawyer has to get through? If you don't like the fees, don't hire.

A 4 week trial? Really?

Also, others think it's odd to be charged for research? What do you want the lawyer to do? Base their legal argument on what they learned at law school years ago? Cases and precedents change. The Court of Appeal will re-rule. If the lawyer/counsel uses the wrong case in court, he/she will have breached the Code by misleading the court...meaning your credibility is down and you've just delayed resolution even more.

When you enter and leave court, you bow to the judge. You bow out of respect - because there's a shit load of stuff that judge (once a lawyer) had to do. Likewise, lawyers do credible things that you just don't know about...because you just don't know, yet feel equipped to judge.

Consider opportunity cost: they still charge for writing letters because it takes up time that could have been spent doing more lucrative work.

What a load of tosh. As someone who has had dealings with an employment lawyer - £4,000 worth to be exact - I can see how easily the bills accumlate. Particularly because I had to pay a retainer each time. I also kept some of the bills down by prepping much of my own paperwork. It was worth every penny. As I often say not only did I get bloody good advice but I it was much, much cheaper than having to shell out for counselling.

As a result of that experience (and something my lawyer said) I have got myself CIPD qualified and could probably handle the same situation again on my own without the lawyer but at the time I needed her. She and her colleague were fantastic at building up my confidence again and I'll never forget that.

I was also advised that a tribunal case could cost up to £100,000 in legal fees and that it would be cheaper to use a barrister at £800ish per day.

Agree with instructing a barrister direct. I do that a lot as mostly I can do the same work in house as an external law firm can do. I like to mention, where I can, that I'm saving my clients £350/hr in doing so (I don't charge anything for my time though).

Although not a lawyer I work in IT within the Legal Industry and have a very good idea (in that I design them) of how Legal Time & Billing systems work and the processes involved.

There is currently a huge debate about how lawyers bill and there are many different options that are used - depending on the firm. Like anything in life you need to discuss and bargain with the firm before engaging them. You need to ensure that you understand how much it could cost you.

There are a number of billing methods in legal, including:

Time based = You pay per hour or per Unit (units are normally 6 minutes long but rounded up so if a lawyer is on the phone for 8 minutes you would be charged for 12 minutes of time i.e. 2 units)
Fixed Fee = What you want and does happen. A set fee is agreed at the point of engagement
Capped Fee = A Cap is set so a firm can give you an estimate and say that even if it costs more you would not pay more than X
Fee Floor - The opposite of a cap fee. This would say you will pay a minimum of x and anything over and above that.

Also - just so you are aware I am an IT Contractor and get paid per day regardless of how long it takes. Many people are paid by the hour or day... not just lawyers. My cleaner is renumerated by the hour, as is my gardener so it is also not simply something that happens to the rich.

I tend to agree that if you want to employ Magic Circle firms for cases like this well... you need to be prepared to pay the costs involved. These rates are too high for a High Street firm so if that's who represented you - you were probably ripped off.

I think one of the reasons is that the general public hears a lot in the media about fat cat lawyers. There are lawyer fat cats but they are a minority and mostly doing work that would never bring them into professional contact with the general public. Most of the lawyers people use for wills, conveyancing, small disputes are not fat cats and earning a fraction of the sums touted about in the media.

And I agree with AfricanExport. We do a lot of work on fixed and capped fees these days.

I agree with African Export, we don't all charge by the hour, I don't always charge by the hour, but sometimes I do, and employment litigation for indiviudals is one of the occasions where I would usually have a clock running. Because people are unpredicatbale, and do things as a point of principle. I will also add that on the occasions I have been a client, even on conveyancing I chose to pay hourly as i would then get what i paid for, time, and attentiveness when i was too busy to spend all the time doing what needed doing. I accept I am lucky to be able to afford that but it made sense for me, and I would do it again as it was better value for money than a fixed fee (which may have been cheaper)

however I would also point out to those who are lawyer bashing that for most individuals I make a loss on the time I spend, taking into account the costs of acting for the employee (everything from the It systems, secretarial resources - now very few - insurance, accounts, credit control, bank loans, office, heating, and the cost of my firms HR, training, library, etc departments) and then the fact that usually at the point of billing I will write off a significant chunk of time actually spent because the employee won't pay it, doesn't have it, it doesn't justify the cost given what happened, because i can't be bothered to sue them when they don't pay, because because because. At billing I will always look at the cost benefit and the feee estimates, and the clever computer systems which tell me how much time has been spent against the budget and how far along we are.

As such I chose generally not to act for individuals as I cannot make much if any living doing so. I would much rather work for the employers as I am generally appreciated by them more, as they see how much I save them (rather than what I cost them). They also tend to pay more quickly (whereas I can be chasing individuals for bills years later) and don't argue even when we are within or below budget as they plain don't want to pay - you wouldn't go into tesco and say oh actually I know I ate the food i bought but I am only paying for 50% of it but that's what people do to us day in day out. If I chose to act for individual I will do it for other reasons usually - sometimes because of who they are friends family etc, and soemtimes because I believe in them - sometimes because no-one else will. I do my share of pro-bono and free advise for those less fortunate than myself and most of my clients, but those are not those earning £3000 a month, its those who earn nothing, are homeless etc, and really need a safety net. Working or nothing for those people is far more rewarding, and its the fees I earn elsewhere that allows me to spend some time doing that.

I think we will move away from hourly charging, but I also believe that this will be in part to preserve the slim profit margins we make NOT because we are too expensive by the hour. (and before anyone takes issue with my saying we make a profit - in effect that is to pay the partners, who do not receive a penny unless we make a profit, as we employ everyone else out of the bottom line before we get a penny)

My solicitors are superstars. I didn't have much money when I got divorced. When that ran out and I wasn't entitled to legal aid, they represented me for free because they were concerned about my wellbeing. Over the years since then they have frequently given me advice over the phone for free and have only charged me when they physically do something (ie draw up will or deed etc.)