% fees unethical or immoral???

lads DONT FEED THE TROLLS.

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.

Click to expand...

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I have been reliably informed that it can be difficult to get a legal apprenticeship - is this outdated??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.

"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.

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:

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

To use your own parlance, RTFA.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

This thread is now closed.