from the dEsq of ethicalEsq:
Clicking around on our Referer Page yesterday, it was quite satisfying to discover that a Google Search for lawyer contingency fees yielded the ethicalEsq archive on Fees as its #1 result. More exciting, however, was noting that the #2 result was a law firm that apparently told its clients they should negotiate with their lawyer over contingency fee levels. My euphoria was only diminished a little when I learned that the firm, Polten & Hodder, was located in Toronto– but it spiked back up again when I saw the content of the website.
When lawyers get together to discuss how to improve lawyer marketing, branding, images. etc. I hope they will learn some lessons from the attitude and substance of the materials found at the P&H website. When the visitor clicks on the English-language homepage, he or she is greeted by these passages from The Lawyer’s Calling, by Joseph G. Allegretti
(Paulist Press, New York, 1996):
“How much easier it is for a lawyer to conceive of his client not as an
adult, but more like a child, or a “case” to be tried or settled. How much
easier it is to take command, tell the client you’ll handle everything, and
then get on with your work without having to expend time and energy
nurturing a relationship between equals.”
“There can be no covenant between a lawyer and his client unless and
until the lawyer is willing to encounter his client as an equal who has
something of value to contribute to the relation. … The indispensable
first step in forging a covenant between a lawyer and a client is the
willingness of both parties to entrust themselves to the other.”
Beyond such generalities, you can find links to more materials which show that P&H takes the philosophy into its practice of law. It’s contingency fee FAQ page is a prime example — containing information and advice impossible to find on the pages of American tort/p-i lawyers, including:
-
“Such fees are usually based on a percentage–often 20% to 45% of
the proceeds. Such agreements may also be dependent upon various
factors including the nature and complexity of the matter, the risk involved,
the cost in pursuing the matter, and the likelihood of success.”
-
“The key disadvantage is less obvious. Generally speaking, a
contingency fee will in the long run cost you more than if you
were paying monthly as the matter progressed.”
-
“Be wary of the “straight percentage.” You claim may settle early on. …
You should try to arrange, therefore, what some lawyers call a “graduated”
fee arrangement, whereby the percentage fee increases as the matter progresses.”
-
“Make sure your contingency fee agreement contains a provision that you are
entitled to have the lawyer’s fee reviewed by a Superior Court judge to ensure
that the agreement is fair and reasonable and is void of improper motive or conduct
by the lawyer involved. You should insist on this provision. Try to get your lawyer
to agree that he or she will make this application if you require it and that he or she
will pay the cost of doing so–not you!”
-
“Negotiate with your lawyer. It may well be advisable to pay a separate, independent
lawyer to negotiate the contingency agreement with the lawyer who is taking your case.
Don’t laugh. If a small up front fee saves you $100,000.00 in fees down the road, it is
money well spent.”
[You know, Brickman or Giacalone could have written this webpage copy!]
P&H also offers an extensive list of the Top 10 Ways to Save Money on Legal Fees. There are
good, practical pointers, with the preface: “We have observed over the years that the amount
of time lawyers have to spend on files can be a source of frustration not only for clients (who
have to pay for all that time) but also for lawyers, who would much rather spend their time applying
analytical skills than coping with the administrative details of a client’s file. EFFICIENCY is the name
of the game in keeping your legal bills down, way down.”
You’d almost think these guys were nurturing a fiduciary relationship with clients with regard to
fees. I’m inspired. What do you think ATLA? Public Citizen? Evan? Matt?
Speaking of inspiration from Canada, let’s share a few moments with poet-professor-
psycholgist George Swede from his treasury of haiku, Almost Unseen.
in the windswept window
among the wild trees
my face
one by one
to the floor all
of her shadows
as the professor speaks
only his bald spot
is illuminated
by dagosan:
neighborhood stroll
January 5th —
no one says “Happy New Year!”
[Jan. 5, 2005]
“tinyredcheck” I hate to be a curmudgeon, and Matt Homann does seem to deserve
all the nice things said about his personality and talent. But, from the
client/consumer’s perspective, I must continue to dissent from many
of the positions he takes on pricing legal services and branding law
firms. As I recently noted, he seems too often to be “dreaming up ways
for lawyers to extract more money from clients without giving them a better
product.” I continue to wonder how the fiduciary relationship jibes with
manipulating client psyches and price elasticities in order to maximize profits.
See our posts on value billing, lawyer marketing, and fees and the lawyer-fiduciary.
Evan Schaeffer has opened his weblog today to a post from a tort reformer.
Evan will respond. This should be a very useful forum on an important topic.
