The joke is over

vivatifosi

Why should we care about lawyers? Because in previous downturns the sector has not been that badly hit. You need lawyers to deal with issues such as corporate insolvency and complex personal bankruptcy. FWIW I still think that the legal sector will fare relatively well compared to others, but firms will lay off staff if the areas in which they specialise are hit.

I'm not a lawyer, I'm a business researcher, but I watched sectors in both the early 90s recession and the early 00s non-recession and the legal sector got off relatively unscathed both times.

Therefore if the legal sector does end up being badly hit that may indicate that this is indeed going to be a really savage recession.

whathavewedone

Most of these jobs have hit paralegals. These are people who if they work in conveyancing departments do the dull jobs such as registrations etc. They are not "highly paid". Okay they won't be on the minimum wage but they won't be getting salaries of 50k even if they work in London for one of the top firms. They will be worked like dogs, however. I was a temp secretary at Linklaters during the last recession and everyone there works their asses of from solicitors and trainees working 16 hour days to secretaries being expected to work overtime night after night after night.

I would bet that a lot of the lay offs at Linklaters have been paralegals.

Residential conveyancing is one of the least highly regarded sides of the legal profession. Having spent some time doing it when I was training myself I would say that it is difficult and thankless. You have to have 100 files on the go for it to be profitable, everyone thinks that their purchase and/sale is more important than everyone elses and think nothing of phoning up several times a day to chase (when it's already been explained where you are up to what you are waiting for from the other side etc) when being charged a fixed fee.

I don't understand this hatred of lawyers. Did you know that criminal lawyers get paid an average of 17k? And that for that they have to be on night duty a few times a week?

As for the pay, eventually if you are in certain areas of private practice then yes you do get paid well if you are prepared to work at least 12 hours a day and are also very good at your job.

I think that after a getting a 2.1 in a tough 3 year degree, followed by another year at law school (also very tough in terms of the amount of exams, volume of stuff to learn etc) followed by a 2 year training contract (if you are lucky enough to get one) earning 20kish in London, less outside you deserve to get 40kish a year as a newly qualified in London - outside London you could expect a bit less than that.

I think there are people who get paid a lot more than that who haven't put in nearly as much effort in quite frankly.

It's the partners in big/medium sized firms that get paid lots of money. But then they put their time in to get where they are.

I think there's a real lack of understanding about the different areas of law/types of lawyers and what they actually do.

I wish people wouldn't slate what they don't seem to understand.

I also wish NDG was around because I'm sure she would thank this post.

Barristers are also lawyers don't you know. Only difference is that instead of going to law school they go to bar school and instead of doing a training contract within a firm they do a pupilage at Chambers.

Ewarwoowar2

I agree with the post above. Many people are critical of lawyers until they need one.

whathavewedone

Incidentally property lawyers did suffer in the last recession too. I think the difference is that because we have had such a lengthy housing boom a lot more paralegals/licensed conveyancers etc were taken on and also more firms that specialised in conveyancing only. A lot of them employed whole teams to deal with remortgages alone. These firms will be lucky to survive.

I don't think this means that the legal profession as a whole is about to die.

There will still be a need for:

Criminal lawyers
Family lawyers
Immigration lawyers
Tax lawyers
Probate lawyers
Civil litigation lawyers
Personal injury lawyers
Corporate lawyers (although some of these will have lost/will lose jobs)

And there is and will continue to be a particular demand during the recession for:

Insolvency lawyers
Employment lawyers
Property litigation lawyers

A lot of companies will be developing their property litigation departments to compensate for the lack of business on the non contentious side and in a year or two might even be in a position to offer jobs to paralegals to do the straightforward debt collection work.

That was how I got to be a lawyer. I was working as a secretary in the property litigation department of a firm in the early 90s, got promoted to paralegal (though no increase in salary) and got funded by the company to take the necessary exams. The non contentious side of the department was dead until 1996 but they had about 4 paralegals on the litigation side. Once the boom took off they were taking paralegals on in the non contentious side doing plot sales...

So it's swings and roundabouts.

HelpWhereIcan

ShimSham wrote: »

What's so special about lawyers as opposed to any other group of workers.

My corporate lawyer is a very special and skilled guy.

He is trying to charge me $5k for something that he did using cut and paste and has the skills to sound serious when he tells me it represents a generous reduction from the £8000 worth of billable hours they have logged as he wants to keep the cost as proportionate to the size of the job as possible.

I wouldn't disagree so much if the additional work was not simple things like removing a name, cutting out some paragraphs and changing a price - surely even a highly skilled lawyer can do that in minutes when using a document based almost entirely in precedent they hold.

Rant over cos I love him really and will be paying his bill this week (he's bound to be an MSEer and almost certainly a certified tinfoil hat wearing member of the economy etc forum knowing my luck)

whathavewedone

If it's such a simple job why are you using someone as expensive as him to do it? Why not just go to any old firm on your local high street and ask them how much they would charge to do it?

It is a free market you know.

His charge out rate is his charge out rate. He's not going to upset a client by saying it's too noddy a job for him to do, he'll do it but why should he do it for peanuts when he could be doing other work which justifies his charge out rate?

Alternatively it might not actually be quite as simple as you think. How much would it cost you potentially if a mistake was made? If it wouldn't cost you anywhere near as much as he is charging then I don't understand why you got him to do the job tbh.

whitfreak

I dont know why its such a surprise. Many city law firms are going to get hit if most of their business is in banking. Other firms dealing with property arnt going to get alot of business atm. Its the problem with specialisation, if it gets hit you have little to fall back on. Although I agree they will get less hit than most, they will still get hit.

HelpWhereIcan

whathavewedone wrote: »

If it's such a simple job why are you using someone as expensive as him to do it? Why not just go to any old firm on your local high street and ask them how much they would charge to do it?

It is a free market you know.

Valid points...

It is a free market.

He is from a local high street firm.

His charge out rate is £150 ph - not too high is it? (no sarcasm meant)

but ...

whathavewedone wrote: »

His charge out rate is his charge out rate. He's not going to upset a client by saying it's too noddy a job for him to do, he'll do it but why should he do it for peanuts when he could be doing other work which justifies his charge out rate?

The work being done is not being done at partner level - it has already been passed down the line to someone more at the level suited to the job.

whathavewedone wrote: »

Alternatively it might not actually be quite as simple as you think. How much would it cost you potentially if a mistake was made? If it wouldn't cost you anywhere near as much as he is charging then I don't understand why you got him to do the job tbh.

Well, let's see.

Draw up one sale agreement based on heads of terms provided (simple transfer of client bank from one firm to another in return for lump sum and consultancy agreement). Draw up one short form consultancy agreement based on precedent. Meet with me and accountant to discuss deal. Original quote £1950 plus VAT.

Additional work:

One change to sale agreement to shorten an agreement said to be too weighty for the transaction size by the other side's solicitor.

One change to sale agreement to remove the name of the vendor's wife as she was not a director.

One change to sale agreement to change the price.

One change to sale agreement to have payment made direct to vendor rather than through his solicitor's client account.

A review of the adviser contract to be offered to the vendor (specifically requested to be a brief once over as it was a precedent document in common use in the industry).

Arranging a charge over my shares in another company used to secure the funding for the purchase. (precedent held by solicitor)

Loan letter from investor (precedent held by solicitor)

preparation of co house documents to change name and issue shares (£150 if done by my accountant)

short form consultancy agreement for another individual (only £5000 pa max 5 days per month - precedent held by solicitor)

total additional billable hours - 40 x 150 = 6000 + original cost 1950 = 7950 (plus Vat)

discounted to 4500 (+VAT) when I said "YOU F@IN WHAT! Where were my interim bills?"

Now if someone could tell me where the additional 20 hours came from (bearing in mind all precedent) let alone the supposed 40 hours came from I'd love to know.

BTW, the very experienced accountant/investor who has advised me on this and provided the reccomendation was very surprised when I told him about the bill. So much so that this very well respected accountant and businessman (whose companies use this firm all the time) has said (without prompting) that he will take it up with a senior partner as the bill is out of proportion with the job done.

My original post was half tongue in cheek but your response seems to be typical of those in the legal profession to complaints.

My industry has a lot of flack so I can understand the raw nerve aspect, but I do not think it unreasonable to expect that an interim invoice would be raised if the cost went from 1950 to 4000 let alone 8000. Surely even a phone call to say "look HWC, you are really peeing me off with this little transaction, it's taking too much time and did you know your bill is currently £X"

Leaving it until the job is done and I have little choice (or opportunity to change/restrict instructions) is beyond the pale.

whathavewedone

There is plenty you can do actually.

You don't just have to pay the bill no questions asked. You can demand to see timesheets which will show you who worked on the file when, how much time they spent, what their charge out rate is.

You can argue that the time spent was disproportionate. You can try to negotiate the fee downwards. Ultimately you can make a complaint to the Law Society.

I don't think £150 per hour is extortionate for a partner at all, but as you say it is a high street firm.

Without reading the file(s) I can't say whether you've been overcharged or not but if you think you have there is plenty that you can do about it. Quite often firms will knock some money off just to keep clients happy even if the time spent has been properly incurred.

I did work for a firm when a guy got the sack (he was a licensed conveyancer but had been doing it for yonks at various firms and was about 50. He was relatively well paid and only dealt with commercial property) because a few clients had complained about their bills and when the partners went through his files they found that he had put down hours and hours of "perusal" when all there was on the file was a couple of letters and a lease. 1 hour of perusal would have been reasonable to review a commercial lease in order to advise on it plus time engaged on the phone etc which should be obvious from the file by way of attendance notes. From starting to take the p*** to getting the sack took around 6 months, in other words from the start of a transaction to putting in the bills.

So yes, some people do inflate their hours but they get found out and partners are very unlikely to do it as their reputation would be severely tarnished and their firm would go under in no time.

macaque_2

Ewarwoowar2 wrote: »

I agree with the post above. Many people are critical of lawyers until they need one.

I am always critical of lawyers and especially when I am using them.