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?

Lawyering is a fucking scam. They're a cartel.

Lovely, JLKT.

Name change, in case anyone at work recognises me!

I am a traditional high street lawyer, and I LOVE my job. Good thing, really, as there is no money in it these days.

I've been an equity partner for over 10 years. Last year, once we'd paid our staff, overheads and indemnity insurance, we were left with profit of £27k to divide between 3 partners.

We are a good, solid, well liked local firm, with a history stretching back over a hundred years. Clients knit my babies blankets and jumpers, and I am rushed off my feet work wise, but there is no profit in it.

" So why would Tesco etc even want to buy up or invest in any law firms if they are not very profitable i.e. only a few partners make a lot of money. How are they going to pay their shareholders big returns if the partners stay in the business? And if the partners leave the business then presumably their fee earning and expertise is lost, so the business loses value."

Because they will commoditise lots of low-end documentation (the more standard conveyancing etc - in the same way those awful Have you been injured at work or home? Personal Injury firms do) and churn it using paralegals. Joe Bloggs will pay a lot less but when the shit hits the fan Tesco will just rely on its insurance to pay off professional negligence claims.

The Accountancy Firms tried to get in on law firms a decade or so back when and did pretty poorly. KPMG and K-Legal spring to mind. Tesco might do the same thing - buoyed by misconceptions about the legal market of course - and we'll be reading about Tesco desperately trying to sell its legal firm off to anyone who will take it in 10 years' time too.

Realistically firms like mine aren't interested in tesco, and tesco won't be interested in us. What we will look at with ABS are people like LexisNexis, and legal publishers, barristers in our field of expertise, computer porgrammers and suppliers with complimentary businesses (so legal software, case management etc) to try and get economies of scale/synegry on the work we actually do (remember we don't act for individuals generally as there is no money in it taking all things into account) so we can offer a product to our clients (without the hourly rate as transparent as it is at the moment) buying in the add ons from our partners at a better rates as we are in an ABS, so they profit form our profit and vice versa. But we will look to keep the profit otherwise we won't do it.

Some firms will also float, and no I wouldn't want to buy shares in a law firm either, but remember that as an equity partner at the moment, that is exactly what I have, and that is the only way to do it at the moment once you reach a certain point as it is still very much up or out. And there is lies the rub. There are many many things wrong with law, and i can see all of it.

It is still a very vicious and masculine profession (anyone fancy spending every evening out with the clients, travelling all over the place, never being able to commit to picking your child up from nursery or in my case juggling hospital appointments as my DS has SN) while making ends meet and not going mad.

But I love law, I wanted to be a lawyer from the age of 11. I sometimes wonder if I still do, but I enjoy my job because I find the law interesting, which I why I wanted to do it in the first place. I don't enjoy the marketing much, but then I ended up doing the figures a lot as someone needs to do them who understands them. And I do appreciate the money, but that is just one factor. I know I am well paid compared to many, that allows me to support my very underpaid husband, (public sector PhD level job, works harder than I do, earns ok, but peanuts in comparison - not a higher rate taxpayer and his salary wouldn't cover the childcare).

I might have liked to be a barrister, but I didn't have the confidence to get on, didn't get a first class degree, didn't want to be self employed and earning basically nothing for years, so I went to being a solicitor instead. Would I advise my DS to do it, maybe, especially as his SN are less of a barrier to law than most things, including in part the fact I am a woman given I am also now a partner. BUT ABS will porbably help with that side of the profession as the new structures will hopefully mean the school I went to (state school comp) is less important than the fact I am good at what I do.

I am not saying the law is bad, as I have said repeatedly it is good and bad, and there are good and bad lawyers, and I do suspect DMAGA had a bad experience

Blimey - I go out to do some poorly paid work and come back to being completely misunderstood by a bunch of professional people who can't do maths and certainly can't be fair and honest, that say the likes of this

Who do you think the big City law firms should be accountable to? Genuinely curious, not being snippy - I would think if the clients are happy to pay then why does it matter to anyone else? Of course, if the client is a government body spending taxpayers' money then that is different and the government (not the firm) should be able to justify their legal spend.

You have reaffirmed my poor opinion of the legal profession. If anyone has anything constructive to say about the original post, feel free. £27,000 is a decent wage outside London.

but what is your answer to that question? If the clients are happy, the regulatory body is happy, who should they be accountable to?

And do you have any idea how much it costs to train to be a lawyer?

LPC fees alone, which is a qualification every solicitor has to have (which, unless you're very fortunate and manage to have a firm sponsor) are around £10k per year here. That's for the full time course, so you also have to pay living expenses in addition to that. That's after a three year degree or a three year degree + Graduate Diploma in Law (also costing around £10k per year in fees). Then two years training contract.

It's even worse if you want to be a barrister

"You have reaffirmed my poor opinion of the legal profession"

Why? This is one person's view - you may or may not think it correct but "the legal profession" are not the Borg. We do not speak with one voice on all issues.

Someone else said upthread "I don't like lawyers". What people seem not to grasp is that there really is no such thing as "lawyers" or "the legal profession". It is a massively diverse area with all sorts of different roles and personalities, as well as huge diversity of viewpoint, remuneration and purpose.

I find it nonsensical to make sweeping generalisations like some of the ones on this thread. There is such a huge difference in the role of a relatively newly qualified solicitor working for a local law centre (I think one or two do exist still?) or a small charity and an equity partner in a magic circle firm specialising in tax law. Solicitors and barristers work under very different circumstances. Private client and legal aid lawyers have hugely different working practices. Criminal or family court advocates tend to be very different, personality-wise, to corporate desk-based solicitors. Some solicitors and barristers undertake extensive pro bono work - others never lift a finger without payment. Some firms work on fixed fees, others are meticulous in billing every minute of their time.

It would be very strange if someone's gripe with "lawyers" or "the legal profession" was applicable to all of these very diverse individuals.

I am at a loss as to what has provoked that latest post realhousewife. Who can't do maths? Just because you don't like the figures, doesn't make them untrue.

If you want to have a philosophical debate about whether it is morally right for anyone to earn more than £27k then start a thread about that issue.

Clearly you are not sure who the big firms should be accountable to, otherwise you would have answered the question.

Don't know about the big firms but small legal aid firms seem to be accountable to every man and his dog.

The LSC seem to just exist to think up new hoops for us to jump through in order to justify our existence.

They on the other hand can "forget" to process our monthly payment so our firm has no income whatsoever this month and respond with the equivalent of a "whoopsie, our bad" email and decline to do anything about it for 2 weeks.

Oh well, it's not like two of us actually managed to do any fee-paying work today as we had to spend most of our time trying to re-draft our standard letters to take account of the most recent batch of legal aid cuts, all of which need to be explained to clients in excruciating detail. Otherwise the LSC won't pay us for failing to tell our clients what the LSC isn't going to pay for.

Kungfu I said I don't like lawyers. Let me explain why... it comes from my time at univerisity. I found many to be argumentative. Quite a few were rather arrogant and I just don't like to be around that environment. In the 10 years since graduation I have come accross a few different groups of lawyers (solicitors for buying/selling a home, solicitors with family law expertise for writing up a pre-nup, corporate lawyers through work, barristers through a legal action brought by a tenant who got legal aid and barristers through legal action organised by myself against a doctor who prescribed my father a lethal mix of drugs). I am greatful for the legal system that the UK benefits from, but I have only found one lawyer that I like and he was in the US (did our pre-nup).

The barrister in the legal action against the tenant was worth every penny of the GBP800/hr that he charged. He cost me about GBP5k in fees. He was like a snake though and I didn't like him personality wise but respected that he was very good at his job.

There are many problems with legal aid. My main gripe is that thousands was wasted by people like the tenant who tried to argue that I had verbally agreed to give her the house she was renting from me. Quite why this even made it to court is beyond me (the reason was because the neighbour had apparently overheard me say this even though I had a managing agent so did not visit the property). It did nothing but lower my opinion of the legal profession. Taxpayers money was wasted to the tune of GBP50k on a case that she had no chance of winning. Not only that but I was left to pick up my legal costs of GBP25k. There was no channel for me to recoup my costs. Her claim was frivalous and cost me GBP40k+. She proceeded to trash the house when moving out which cost another GBP30k to fix. Using legal aid she tried to come after me for emotional damages. It made me sick that public funds were being used in this way. The legal profession were complicit in this. It should never have been allowed but I was seen as a cash cow as I could afford the legal fees to keep the gig going. It only stopped when I represented myself and told the judge that I couldn't afford a lawyer but had too much in assets to qualify for legal aid so would seek to leave the country to avoid further legal action. Hence, my low opinion of those in the legal profession.

I don't think lawyers make the rules about legal aid though. Saying that you have a low opinion of the legal profession because you think legal aid is a swindle on taxpayers is a bit like saying you have a low opinion of doctors because the NHS is overstretched and there's a long waiting list for an op you need. It makes no sense.

Did you not have any insurance to cover your own legal expenses?

Realhousewife - £27,000 BETWEEN three partners. On outskirts of London.

"I found many to be argumentative"

That's like complaining that accountants are really into numbers, or doctors like discussing injuries.

I am very argumentative. I feel ok about that .

verypoorlawyer And note the irony that YOU as a lawyer are the one unable to do maths. Hilarious.

I find this thread really depressing. Yes, I'm a lawyer. Also I'm entirely average at maths (if I'd been better, maybe I'd have become an accountant instead).

My firm is bending itself in knots so that we don't have to make redundancies. Most local firms have already done so and our nearest firm closed down at the end of September - couldn't get insurance at an affordable sum.

A "normal" mid-sized provincial firm will pay about £150k in insurance premiums. Why? To cover the claims of the "Had a fall at work" and "Click Here for cut price conveyancing" firms who don't employ qualified lawyers, so can't spot a problem until it's too late.

Yes, we often see people at the worst times in their lives - death, divorce and injury. Would you rather we only agreed to see people when everything was fine? Doctors only see people at bad times, so do funeral directors (and they charge more - I am in the wrong job, maybe)

I wouldn't encourage anyone to enter the legal profession at the moment. Training fees are exorbitant, training contracts almost non-existant, jobs thin on the ground and moral is so low.

I don't like all lawyers either. But then, I don't like all shop assistants, dustmen, driving instructors or doctors. Some are nice, some are not. You find a profession with several hundred thousand member and guess what? We aren't all nice, all of the time.

Presumably all the people critisizing us here won't be telling anyone on another thread to go and get their free half hour of advice when their husband leave/house is about to be repossessed/boss runs off with the pension fund.

Who do you think funds all those free half-hours? It's not the Law Fairy.

"Lawyering is a fucking scam. They're a cartel."

Really? They have agreements or concerted practices to fix prices? Gosh. Well you'd better report the cartel here then: www.competition-commission.org.uk/

DMAGA - I agree with babybarrister. What do you do for a living and what do you earn that you feel you can pronounce it such a scandal what lawyers earn/charge. Confidentiality does not prevent you from sharing your area of business and salary. It cannot. So you simply do not want to tell. And I suspect that the reason is that, if your settlement covered £200k of legal fees, I would expect that your annual salary is at least in that region. Added to which, most City firms have an earning threshold to take on individuals, normally of at least £100k pa.

I would hazard a guess that there's a pretty high chance you work/worked in the City. I'm guessing for a big bank, maybe insurance, maybe advertising if you were extremely senior. I think it's less likely you're a high earner from elsewhere (e.g. high earning GP partner) as these professions rarely call on City law firms - you go with what you know and City types know City firms. Is the reason you don't want to tell that you're a banker and that rather undermines your 'money grabbing' argument?

Oh, but on confidentiality, your HR department may well be following this thread with an eagle eye as what you've said is pretty identifying to anyone involved in your dispute. Some of the things you've said (such as hinting at the level of compensation) sail pretty close to the wind on confidentiality. Salary and job area wouldn't (I do know this by the way. I work in this area. And, if you think about it, if confidentiality clauses could restrict this information no one could write a CV and negotiate a salary in a new job).

My DH is a lawyer and a very very successful one. He is also one of the most honest, decent and moral men I have ever met. He is stonkingly successful and scrupulously honest in relation to every expense he incurs and hour he charges. His level of expertise has been built up over almost 25 years and it is only recently that the fruits of his labours have really matured. They have only done that due to huge personal sacrifice in terms of time spent with the DC, my commitment to him and the family and monumental amounts of cerebrally stretching hard work. There have been years, esp. when the dc were small when he worked every single weekend bar half a dozen.

I think the OP has been allowed her hour and that this thread should close because like all who get incredibly vexed, she has had more than enough attention and we shouldn't continue to feed her.

RibenaBerry precisely the point that I was making upthread re confidentiality to be told that I wad making assumptions (largely because our lovely OP has refrained from providing us with much fact). Not bound to silence unless confidentiality agreement had been signed, but well made points! :)

marriedinwhite perfect. Agree totally but still feel frustrated that a couple of posters on thus thread wish to lambast a hardworking, fundamental profession because if a handful of partners who (generally in big firms) earn good money and a few solicitors from Dodgy, Dodgy and Co. BTW, I am in the same body as you once were and it us hard being a legal widow...

Married in white - I feel like one of your DC who has been naughty and attention seeking and is being sent to bed with no supper...!

Babybarrister - believe it or not, I started life at the Bar, doing family work and crime. I then had a complete career change and moved into industry/commercial work. I am now self employed, I work in the City, and my earnings are into six figures. However, my earnings vary and are wholly results orientated. I don't have a problem with lawyers or indeed anyone being remunerated well when they have done a good job. In my case, that did not happen, but I am not seeking legal advice on my personal situation which has now been resolved to my satisfaction.

There are some very intelligent and interesting posts on this site from people like Hilda, who are clearly well aware of the challenges which the profession currently faces and are facing up to them - and then there are those who are smug and defensive in equal measure, to whom I say, 'R.I.P.'

I'm afraid people will be defensive when you make sweeping offensive statements such as: "Does anyone actually like lawyers? Don't they just thrive on other people's misfortunes?" and "Sorry, I don't like lawyers in general. I am sure that some must be ok, but most seem to be shallow and materialistic, TBH."

You have come across as a very bitter and, frankly, thoroughly nasty individual on this thread, OP.

Well, let's hope you never need a half-hour of free advice.