# % fees unethical or immoral???



## Betsy Og (13 Jul 2005)

now maybe this thread will end up in LOS but to me it seems rather unfair, to say the least, that a solicitor's client may well be charged a % of the value of a conveyance etc. regardless of how much work is done.

I believe that the same may also apply in divorce/family settlement cases.

As a consumer I think I should be able to say to a solicitor - I have a job that needs doing, can you do it?, how much will it cost (how much time will you have to spend etc)? can I "shorten the road" for you?
If the response to the fee part above is a % of the asset involved doesnt this beg the question "What has it got to do with the value??, isnt it the same work??, matter a damn whether its worth €1 or €1 million."

I also have "issues" with the whole anti-competitive nature of the legal profession - effectively needing "pull" to get an apprenticeship. And this gown and curls stuff is a bit of an imperialist throwback - as is "deviling" and other strange fetish bullshit that seems to pervade the training process. Other professions seem to manage fine with open competition and less bizarre training. 

p.s. I am not a frustrated law student, am not in the legal profession nor never was veering that way, and personal experiences with the legal profession did not involve % fees but I've seen the issues raise their ugly head.


----------



## mf1 (13 Jul 2005)

Practising solicitor responds. 

1. Section 68 of Solicitors Act obliges us to set out in writing at the earliest possible opportunity the likely fees and the basis of charging. Clients are free to move at any time to any one.
2. % fees are very rarely charged by anyone for anything. Oh, except by auctioneers. 
3. Competition between solicitors is cut throat - very few clients do not shop around 
4. You've seen the fees being quoted on this board - never as % 
5. You gets what you pays for. 
6. Value of asset - reflects on my insurance premium
7. We are producing more than 500 new solicitors every year. They need to get experience in a legal office. Yes it is a problem but it is simply not stopping people from applying. And getting in to the Law Society. And getting apprenticeships - ultimately.
8. If I go to a doctor, I can hardly negotiate a fixed fee before he examines me. I'm not a doctor and I don't know what is wrong with me. Similarly with a solicitor. My clients come to me with their problems and their preferred solution - which often has no basis in fact or reality. My function is to examine the problem and try and come  up with a range of solutions which may or may not include the clients preferred option. 

mf


----------



## Vanilla (13 Jul 2005)

As another practising solicitor ( who by the way did not have or need pull to get an apprenticeship), I am very interested in the 





> other strange fetish bullshit


 bit. Not having come across it myself, I'm intrigued, please do tell all!  

As for the rest, all I can say is that in my experience clients do not seem to realise the amount of work that goes into relatively mundane transactions and the cost of overheads. This is a business, not a charity- we have to make a profit, so the rising cost of overheads coupled with the nature of the work means that legal fees will have to be at a certain level. Once the amount of work involved in a file is explained to a client, they may have a better understanding.


----------



## Betsy Og (13 Jul 2005)

mf1 said:
			
		

> Practising solicitor responds.
> 
> 
> 8. If I go to a doctor, I can hardly negotiate a fixed fee before he examines me. I'm not a doctor and I don't know what is wrong with me. Similarly with a solicitor. My clients come to me with their problems and their preferred solution - which often has no basis in fact or reality. My function is to examine the problem and try and come up with a range of solutions which may or may not include the clients preferred option.
> ...


 
The above is perfectly reasonable. Its not the absence of a definite quote upfront that bugs me, its the % fee thing. And I agree re auctioneering fees.

Any views on the "traditional" aspects of the training/atttire etc.???


----------



## ubiquitous (13 Jul 2005)

In fairness, the term "devilling", the odd attire and other strange customs apply to barristers, not solicitors. Btw, the senior ranks in some other industries maintain various traditions and customs that appear rather odd to the rest of us - for example  pilots insisting on being addressed as "captain" despite the fact that very few of them willl ever serve a day with the military. The army itself is another story...

I would suspect also that the days of needing "pull" to get an apprenticeship are long in the past. The most common gripe heard from professional firms nowadays if the difficulty in sourcing staff. I doubt if law firms are immune from this.


----------



## Betsy Og (13 Jul 2005)

the point about maybe needing "pull" to get going is not a cut at any young solicitors or barristers, I think its just sad that the cream, or enough of it, might not rise to the top because they havent the connections.

My original post was re the legal profession so both solicitors & barristers (probably the bigger offenders on all counts) included.

Re fees - the point was about % fees, not fees in general - though it must be said that tribunal fees etc. seem a bit outlandish (I confess I'm jelous, if I could get away with creaming it like that I'd do it too - notwithstanding that as a taxpayer I end up/will end up paying for some tiny proportion). Its the abuse of the individual punter that concerns me - we could talk all day about how the government wastes money.

Maybe I'm wrong on this but wasnt it the case that up to recently a Senior Counsel wouldnt speak to a solicitor, he would only speak to a junior counsel who would talk to the solicitor. Can a punter engage a barrister directly or does he need to assemble a gravy train, oops, I mean legal team. I find this all very patronising, especially since some of the legal people I've encountered are not very "on the ball" and need to be spoonfed everything.


----------



## CCOVICH (13 Jul 2005)

Betsy Og said:
			
		

> the point about maybe needing "pull" to get going is not a cut at any young solicitors or barristers, I think its just sad that the cream, or enough of it, might not rise to the top because they havent the connections.


 
Can you think of many professions in Ireland where some "pull" isn't required to get to the top?


----------



## Betsy Og (13 Jul 2005)

well the accountancy line isnt too bad, unreconstructed red necks like myself - and worse - get on ok, as do tarue balue Dubs lihk from Dubbalin

many other professions are predominantly self-employed so you make your own way - its only where professions are structured as firms that the whole "pull" thing might get going. 

Plenty of ordinary sods doing grand in banking as well


----------



## ubiquitous (13 Jul 2005)

Most solicitors are self employed.


----------



## Betsy Og (13 Jul 2005)

ubiquitous said:
			
		

> Most solicitors are self employed.


 
well yes, as are most professionals of any type, but the professions where practices/partnerships/firms are most common would be solicitors, accountants, architects?, doctors. However, in the context of "pull", it's mainly employment prospects in firms that the issue would come up.


----------



## ubiquitous (13 Jul 2005)

The vast majority of accountancy practices in Ireland are self-employed sole trader businesses. As are the vast majority of GP doctor practices. Although I don't have statistics at hand, I would be surprised if the same doesn't apply to solicitors and architects.


----------



## Betsy Og (13 Jul 2005)

ubiquitous said:
			
		

> The vast majority of accountancy practices in Ireland are self-employed sole trader businesses. As are the vast majority of GP doctor practices. Although I don't have statistics at hand, I would be surprised if the same doesn't apply to solicitors and architects.


 
Lets not get sidetracked - the % of soletraders Vs firms is not what this post is about (see Ohtouchy Vs Clubman and Rainyday thread on LOS). Lets stay "on topic" as the squirming phase goes, or before you know it we'll be going 'round the houses' to 'think outside the box' if we are ever going to 'step up to the plate' .....


----------



## ubiquitous (13 Jul 2005)

Well you did say...



> many other professions are predominantly self-employed so you make your own way - its only where professions are structured as firms that the whole "pull" thing might get going.



This appear to indicate that "pull" in the context of recruitment policies is a problem in professional firms, but not so in sole practice firms. As most solicitors appear to operate as sole practices, this seems to contradict your point earlier that "pull" is a serious problem in the legal profession. 

(Honestly I can't see the difference, except to the extent that larger firms would be more likely to have structured recruitment policies, making it less probable for them to use "pull" when recruiting).


----------



## Betsy Og (13 Jul 2005)

ubiquitous said:
			
		

> This appear to indicate that "pull" in the context of recruitment policies is a problem in professional firms, but not so in sole practice firms. ).


 
Much as I hate to get sidetracked into pedantics - a sole practitioner works for himself, therefore goes into business on own, no need to doff the cap to any employer. A firm is a collection of professionals who might employ trainees and therefore the right connections might help getting employment. A sole practice firm must be some form of cross breed.

Anyway, the substantive point is that an architect, for example, to my knowledge could come out of college and start his own practice, therefore free from the potential snag of needing an apprenticeship. An accountant (if they want official qualification) or solicitor does not have this option. 

Hence my point re pull being more important in some sectors than others.

(and, for fear architects need to do an apprenticeship, somebody please post a profession which doesnt require one in case we get diverted into that cul-de-sac)


----------



## ubiquitous (13 Jul 2005)

I still don't get your point. Most accountancy sole practices employ trainees. The same goes for legal sole practices.

Btw, there is no difference between a sole practitioner and a sole practice firm.

No architect (or anyone else) could realistically open a practice straight from college without having some years relevant work experience.


----------



## Betsy Og (13 Jul 2005)

ubiquitous said:
			
		

> Btw, there is no difference between a sole practitioner and a sole practice firm.
> .


 
This post will be deleted if not edited immediately wept.....

maybe try rereading the posts below - or better still just forget that minute sidetracking issue and comment on the substantive points.

re the above, I never heard of a one person firm, thats a bit like a 1 man team (and I'm not talking about Matty Forde or Kieran McDonald!)


----------



## ubiquitous (13 Jul 2005)

It is customary for anyone who sets themselves up as an accountant, solicitor, auctioneer, mortgage broker, architect, engineer etc to denote themselves as a firm regardless of whether they have employees. As such some of your comments such as 


> in the context of "pull", it's mainly employment prospects in firms that the issue would come up.


 appear to be me to be largely meaningless.


----------



## Betsy Og (14 Jul 2005)

ubiquitous said:
			
		

> It is customary for anyone who sets themselves up as an accountant, solicitor, auctioneer, mortgage broker, architect, engineer etc to denote themselves as a firm regardless of whether they have employees. As such some of your comments such as
> appear to be me to be largely meaningless.


 
Well I'm afraid if you cant make that "quantum leap" of imagination then I cant help you, there's only so far back you can start explaining something before it becomes tedious and unproductive.


----------



## Vanilla (14 Jul 2005)

> comment on the substantive points


 
The problem is that you don't seem to have any substantive points. You said solicitors shouldnt charge on a percentage basis, and you 've been told they don't anymore. You said you had 'issues' with the fact that apprentices need 'pull' to get an apprenticeship, and you've been told thats not true ( although like many other jobs, sometimes who you know CAN help, you don't need to know anyone to get an apprenticeship or indeed to get the better positions- thats down to academic results, practical experience and just simply being the better candidate for whatever reason). Finally you talk about the 'strange fetish bullshit' that, according to you, pervades the legal profession, but the only ones you mention are caps & gowns and devilling- which belong to the barristers side of the profession. In relation to those, devilling is just a term for an apprenticeship- what is your problem with it exactly? In relation to the cap & gown, what is your problem with that? By no means am I advocating the cap & gown, I'm simply trying to point out to you that for people to reply to you, you have to elaborate on what exactly you are complaining about.


----------



## Ham Slicer (14 Jul 2005)

Vanilla said:
			
		

> The problem is that you don't seem to have any substantive points.



Have to agree with Vanilla.  

This thread is going nowhere.  

It shouldn't just be locked, it should be removed, banished.


----------



## jem (14 Jul 2005)

lads *DONT FEED THE TROLLS.*


----------



## Betsy Og (14 Jul 2005)

Vanilla said:
			
		

> The problem is that you don't seem to have any substantive points. You said solicitors shouldnt charge on a percentage basis, and you 've been told they don't anymore. You said you had 'issues' with the fact that apprentices need 'pull' to get an apprenticeship, and you've been told thats not true ( although like many other jobs, sometimes who you know CAN help, you don't need to know anyone to get an apprenticeship or indeed to get the better positions- thats down to academic results, practical experience and just simply being the better candidate for whatever reason). Finally you talk about the 'strange fetish bullshit' that, according to you, pervades the legal profession, but the only ones you mention are caps & gowns and devilling- which belong to the barristers side of the profession. In relation to those, devilling is just a term for an apprenticeship- what is your problem with it exactly? In relation to the cap & gown, what is your problem with that? By no means am I advocating the cap & gown, I'm simply trying to point out to you that for people to reply to you, you have to elaborate on what exactly you are complaining about.


 
Where is it said by the expert replies that they dont charge % fees anymore. In my original post I gave 2 specific examples which no-one refuted   RTFQ as the lecturer said (the other 3 words being Read the Question).

I have been reliably informed that it can be difficult to get a legal apprenticeship - is this outdated?? If so then say so but its not like somebody plucked it out of the sky.

Nobody cared to reply to the SUBSTANTIVE POINT about the composition of legal teams and whether it was indeed a fact that, up to recently, a Snr Counsel needed a Jnr Counsel to speak to the solicitor.

My post was re the legal profession, again RTFQ, and I already acknowledged that some points may be relevant barristers only. We seem to have the solicitors defence force on patrol here - pretty poor showing since the lack of literacy (RTFQ) and/or comprehensive pervades their posts.

Re Devilling - it is not the case that you have to attend (or maybe even sponsor) a certain number of formal dinners???

I already outlined my view re the cap and gown (RTFQ).

Anymore clarification needed??, or maybe since the written word isnt getting through I should start formulating big pictures cards or something.


----------



## MOB (14 Jul 2005)

"Where is it said by the expert replies that they dont charge % fees anymore."

Well, in fairness Betsy I think that this response in one of the first replies to you meets this  requirement:

"% fees are very rarely charged by anyone for anything. Oh, except by auctioneers"

To use your own parlance, RTFA.


----------



## Betsy Og (14 Jul 2005)

MOB said:
			
		

> "Where is it said by the expert replies that they dont charge % fees anymore."
> 
> Well, in fairness Betsy I think that this response in one of the first replies to you meets this requirement:
> 
> ...


 
RTFA indeed. 

"Rarely charged by anyone anymore". Apart maybe from the 2 SPECIFIC cases I mentioned.

As the post "said on the tin" - the main SUBSTANTIVE issue was whether the charging of such fees was justifyable. But nobody wanted to express a view on that point.

It is not in my nature to have get so sarcastic but when I get call a troll by people who wont RTFQ, get totally pedantic and end up acting like imbeciles in case they'd have to concede an issue - i.e. the "I still dont understand" brigade. It isnt remedial english or comprehension classes that are supposed to be run here.


----------



## Vanilla (15 Jul 2005)

Whew! Thats a lot of hot air there Betsy Og, pity you don't put as much effort into your argument. I stand by what I said, you've made no substantive point, therefore theres little more to say.


----------



## ubiquitous (15 Jul 2005)

This thread is now closed.


----------

