Doom and Gloom in the Solicitors Profession

McCrack

Right well I wasnt going to post this in a certain other thread but I invite people to have a look at P9 Of October's Law Society Gazette and read the article headed "Litigation substantially up in all courts"

The facts speak for themselves and in my opinion contradict a lot of what certain posters seem to say regarding the 'terrible times' the profession is now facing. Conveyancing as we all know is down but like the article says other areas are up quite substantially even in the big R.

I work myself in a small Dublin practice and I can personally say we have never been busier...
Point being it's swings and roundabouts, law is as diverse as your clients, people in a recession dont stop dying, having accidents, getting arrested, getting sacked, reneging on debts, breaking up, buying/selling/leasing property etc etc.

http://www.lawsociety.ie/Gazette/Gazette%202008/Law%20Society%20Gazette%20Vol%20102%20No%208%20Oct%202008.pdf?groupID=546&node=546

Amazotheamazing

McCrack wrote: »

I work myself in a small Dublin practice and I can personally say we have never been busier...
Point being it's swings and roundabouts, law is as diverse as your clients, people in a recession dont stop dying, having accidents, getting arrested, getting sacked, reneging on debts, breaking up, buying/selling/leasing property etc etc.

Perhaps, but can you charge correct fees for it?

TheDemiurge

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Perhaps, but can you charge correct fees for it?

Exactly. If you don't get a decent retainer then it's not worth the bother.

An increase in litigation can be expected in a recession, but it's different this time around. No conveyancing fees to support cashflow, and of course PIAB.

McCrack

Yes €300 per hour is the professional fee. The practice is doing very well.

TheDemiurge

McCrack wrote: »

Yes €300 per hour is the professional fee. The practice is doing very well.

But you probably don't see receive it for a long time. And although 300 Euro is billed, I'm quite sure there's a cap on what you charge depending on the matter in question. Otherwise, someone else down the road would have your business.

Can I ask you - what you do charge for a conveyance? Say, a second hand property, 300k, FTB?

McCrack

TheDemiurge you seem stuck in your ways. Granted you have your experience and opinion and will stick by that, my experience is in contrast.

Again I invite you to consider the article in the Gazette which paints a different picture of the legal pie which we all want a slice out of to the one you and some others have about the profession.

€995 plus VAT and outlay. Our fees income is about 40% conveyancing. Were making a very healthy return overall for 2008.

TheDemiurge

McCrack wrote: »

TheDemiurge you seem stuck in your ways. Granted you have your experience and opinion and will stick by that, my experience is in contrast.

Again I invite you to consider the article in the Gazette which paints a different picture of the legal pie which we all want a slice out of to the one you and some others have about the profession.

€995 plus VAT and outlay. Our fees income is about 40% conveyancing. Were making a very healthy return overall for 2008.

I'm not interested in the Gazette - I'm interested in turnover and having a healthy practice. We can all find cases if we want them, but whether or not they translate into fees is another matter.

I asked you if you cap your fees where on paper you charge 300 hour, and you haven't responded. I can only assume that you do, which brings your actual hourly rate well below 300 Euro per hour.

995 Euro plus VAT is 0.3% of the purchase price and undoubtedly a fixed fee. It still represents a massive drop in fee income from what you should be getting. Why should you drop your fee when estate agents didn't? They're not accountable on any level; you are. Estate agents and mortgage brokers must be laughing themselves sick at solicitors. You dropped your fees because of unfair below cost selling in legal services and you had to join in or else bail out of the game, not out of generosity. It's nothing to be proud of, and you do other solicitors a real disservice. You cannot make money or do a conveyance properly for 995 Euro. It cannot be done; corners are always and inevitably cut. It is not sustainable to keep charging 995 plus VAT when file volumes are drastically reduced.

When you say that I'm "stuck in my ways", I imagine your practice is one of those tied up with a fixed fee conveyancing franchise. You may also be on the legal aid panel, which is the only real way of getting paid in most litigation.

Tell me, as I'm sure many readers of this site are dying to know - are you taking on trainees this year? That's the clincher.

McCrack

TheDemiurge wrote: »

I'm not interested in the Gazette - I'm interested in turnover and having a healthy practice. We can all find cases if we want them, but whether or not they translate into fees is another matter.

I asked you if you cap your fees where on paper you charge 300 hour, and you haven't responded.

995 Euro plus VAT is 0.3% of the purchase price and undoubtedly a fixed fee. It still represents a massive drop in fee income from what you should be getting. It is wrong on every level. Why should you drop your fee when estate agents didn't? They're not accountable on any level; you are. Estate agents and mortgage brokers must be laughing themselves sick at solicitors. You dropped your fees because of unfair below cost selling in legal services, not out of generosity. In the long run, it's nothing to be proud of.

I can only assume that your practice is one of those tied up with a fixed fee conveyancing franchise. You may also be on the legal aid panel. Tell me, as I'm sure many readers of this site are dying to know - are you taking on trainees this year?

You didnt ask me whether our fees were capped. Youre also making assumptions too.
You can also choose to ignore the statistics in the Gazette, I take them as being fact, not speculative and definately at odds with your negative assertions on the profession and its future.

I'm going to bed.

TheDemiurge

McCrack wrote: »

You didnt ask me whether our fees were capped. Youre also making assumptions too.
You can also choose to ignore the statistics in the Gazette, I take them as being fact, not speculative and definately at odds with your negative assertions on the profession and its future.

I'm going to bed.

I'm asking you now, and if you don't answer, I'll take that as a yes.

I don't care how many cases are lodged in the District Court Civil list, and so on. Your reliance on case numbers quoted in the Gazette as solely equating with solicitors profit margins is bizarre. The stats mean nothing unless there's underlying liquidity there to pay for the services and an adequate bill is presented to the client.

elgransenor

McCrack wrote: »

TheDemiurge you seem stuck in your ways. Granted you have your experience and opinion and will stick by that, my experience is in contrast.

Again I invite you to consider the article in the Gazette which paints a different picture of the legal pie which we all want a slice out of to the one you and some others have about the profession.

€995 plus VAT and outlay. Our fees income is about 40% conveyancing. Were making a very healthy return overall for 2008.

Good for you McCrack. My office has the same experience and whilst conveyancing is down, we are still very busy.
Difficulty in getting paid is the same in any industry where you are not dealing in cash,not just the legal profession.
But every industry has its share of whingers.
Whilst they are busy with that, other people are just :cool:busy.

Johnny Utah

TheDemiurge wrote: »

I'm not interested in the Gazette - I'm interested in turnover and having a healthy practice. We can all find cases if we want them, but whether or not they translate into fees is another matter.

I asked you if you cap your fees where on paper you charge 300 hour, and you haven't responded. I can only assume that you do, which brings your actual hourly rate well below 300 Euro per hour.

995 Euro plus VAT is 0.3% of the purchase price and undoubtedly a fixed fee. It still represents a massive drop in fee income from what you should be getting. Why should you drop your fee when estate agents didn't? They're not accountable on any level; you are. Estate agents and mortgage brokers must be laughing themselves sick at solicitors. You dropped your fees because of unfair below cost selling in legal services and you had to join in or else bail out of the game, not out of generosity. It's nothing to be proud of, and you do other solicitors a real disservice. You cannot make money or do a conveyance properly for 995 Euro. It cannot be done; corners are always and inevitably cut. It is not sustainable to keep charging 995 plus VAT when file volumes are drastically reduced.

When you say that I'm "stuck in my ways", I imagine your practice is one of those tied up with a fixed fee conveyancing franchise. You may also be on the legal aid panel, which is the only real way of getting paid in most litigation.

Tell me, as I'm sure many readers of this site are dying to know - are you taking on trainees this year? That's the clincher.

Why didn't the Law Society step in when firms first started offering conveyancing below cost?

The reason I ask is because I thought that there was a set schedule of fees in place, and if there was ever a dispute as to fees, the Taxing Master would decide what was reasonable.

TheDemiurge

[/I]

Johnny Utah wrote: »

Why didn't the Law Society step in when firms first started offering conveyancing below cost?

The reason I ask is because I thought that there was a set schedule of fees in place, and if there was ever a dispute as to fees, the Taxing Master would decide what was reasonable.

They didn't because they are forbidden from doing so by competition law. The DSBA recommended fee schedule that was in place was ruled illegal and price fixing.

McCrack says that his firm charges 300 an hour. If it charges only 995 Euro for a conveyance, then is he saying that he's only spending 3 hours on a conveyance? If so, he's not doing his job properly. If not, and he's spending the six or seven hours required to do the job correctly and protect one's practice against potential claims, then he's not charging 300 an hour - he's charging 150 hour or less.

McCrack and Elgransenor are trying to justify below cost selling by saying that they are still very busy. Of course you'll be busy if you engage in below cost selling but will you be making adequate profit margins to sustain you through the bad times? Of course not.

More importantly, are you doing a conveyance properly? Is the Booklet of Title being read, and the long form Standard Terms and Conditions for the Loan Offer being explained to the client line by line? Of course not.

Elgransenor's repeated personal attacks on me are infantile. I don't know why he feels the need to be so personally viliful. If he thinks he can make a buck out of my practice in the current climate better than I can, then I'd be delighted for him to take over my files, and that's a genuine offer which can be PM'd to me.

Fixed fee conveyancing has decimated and slandered the profession. It's given the impression to the public that conveyancing is money for jam. If Elgransenor thinks that doing a crap job for a bargain price is good business sense, let him come back when the claims start coming in against his PI insurance when he's qualified.

Let me say it once and for all - anyone who claims that a conveyance, including a full explanation of the terms of conditions of the lending institution involved, can be done for 995 Euro is lying. It is dangerous and exposing a legal practice to multiple claims.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Johnny Utah

But below cost selling is illegal too, if it has the effect of wiping out competitors. So, I suppose there has to be a balance between offering value for money, and also taking time to do the conveyance properly. It seems that all the client sees is the price, not the quality of work.


I thought that a fee schedule was quite normal for most professions. For example, I know a couple of doctors that practice in a town down the country. A foreign doctor opened up his own practice and charged 10 euro less than everyone else for an appointment. Let's say the GPs were charging 60euro- they were all charging the same fee, except for this new doctor. Well, the other doctors were furious with this, and basically just shunned him. There was an out-of-hours service for all the GPs, but the foreign doctor wasn't allowed to refer his patients to this service. You know how word quickly spreads around a small town, well the foreign doctor wasn't very busy. I'm not saying I agree with this, I'm just giving an example of how things work in real life.

And, look at dentists, they generally have similar fees for a check up. So, who decides these fees?
A lot of people claim that dental fees are much cheaper up the North, and this would suggest that either there is a fee schedule in place for each type of work done, or else we are just being ripped off.

Scruff

now this is something i havent seen before, solicitors having a spat with each other over fees as opposed to joe bloggs ranting about solicitors. interseting.

TheDemiurge wrote: »

[/i]
Let me say it once and for all - anyone who claims that a conveyance, including a full explanation of the terms of conditions of the lending institution involved, can be done for 995 Euro is lying. It is dangerous and exposing a legal practice to multiple claims.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

would you care to explain what the costings are for a conveyencing? is it purely a matter of paying for the hours involved in reading the legal documentation? i find it hard to beleive that every solicitor, even those charging the higher rates read every minutiae.

McCrack

TheDemiurge wrote: »

I'm asking you now, and if you don't answer, I'll take that as a yes.

I don't care how many cases are lodged in the District Court Civil list, and so on. Your reliance on case numbers quoted in the Gazette as solely equating with solicitors profit margins is bizarre. The stats mean nothing unless there's underlying liquidity there to pay for the services and an adequate bill is presented to the client.

TheDemurge your general tone in this and other threads is that youre pissed off with the job for various reasons. The traditional 1% conveyancing fee is gone and McLaw has stepped in. This was well and good before the boom but when property started to spriral up a lawyer could of hardly justified sticking to the 1%.
You have stated that we dont bill properly for legal services anymore, I say we now bill competitively (something we never did before in the history of the profession).
The arse has not fallen out of the business in my experience. As I have stated earlier my practice is doing very well.

Now to answer your earlier Q's. We have a trainee at the minute in PPC, we wont be taking another on but like I said we are a small inner-city practice. We are on the Legal Aid Panel but leaving aside criminal we operate on a no foal basis. I mean a case will not be ran if it's not solid and 9/10 Defendants are deep pockets.
Our S68 will obviously give the fee estimation and granted the professional hours worked in most cases (bar some exceptions) dont reflect the actual fees received.

Finally as you have suggested I never equated solicitors profit margins with the statistics in the Gazette article. I did post that link to show you and others who have this negitave attitude that things are not quite that bad. My practice is going well, yours mightened be, **** happens.

Maximilian

Certain areas are going to do well out of this - litigation yes but also insolvency work - the latter is seeing a sharp rise of late and mght just end up saving my ass.

elgransenor

TheDemiurge wrote: »

[/I]

They didn't because they are forbidden from doing so by competition law. The DSBA recommended fee schedule that was in place was ruled illegal and price fixing.

McCrack says that his firm charges 300 an hour. If it charges only 995 Euro for a conveyance, then is he saying that he's only spending 3 hours on a conveyance? If so, he's not doing his job properly. If not, and he's spending the six or seven hours required to do the job correctly and protect one's practice against potential claims, then he's not charging 300 an hour - he's charging 150 hour or less.

McCrack and Elgransenor are trying to justify below cost selling by saying that they are still very busy. Of course you'll be busy if you engage in below cost selling but will you be making adequate profit margins to sustain you through the bad times? Of course not.

More importantly, are you doing a conveyance properly? Is the Booklet of Title being read, and the long form Standard Terms and Conditions for the Loan Offer being explained to the client line by line? Of course not.

Elgransenor's repeated personal attacks on me are infantile. I don't know why he feels the need to be so personally viliful. If he thinks he can make a buck out of my practice in the current climate better than I can, then I'd be delighted for him to take over my files, and that's a genuine offer which can be PM'd to me.

Fixed fee conveyancing has decimated and slandered the profession. It's given the impression to the public that conveyancing is money for jam. If Elgransenor thinks that doing a crap job for a bargain price is good business sense, let him come back when the claims start coming in against his PI insurance when he's qualified.

Let me say it once and for all - anyone who claims that a conveyance, including a full explanation of the terms of conditions of the lending institution involved, can be done for 995 Euro is lying. It is dangerous and exposing a legal practice to multiple claims.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Thanks for your kind offer re letting me take over your files.
However I will not be able to at this point in time as
I AM TOO BUSY;)

Gangu

Sure litigation is up a bit, but that does not mean that it cancels out all of the decline in other areas. In a firm with 50+ fee earners we are down comparing month on month over the last few years, clients are pushing out the credit terms, it is harder to get paid, and it is harder to agree a fair fee for the work. Anyone who says that they are not affected by the current climate economically I suspect is not at a level that they are seeing the books.

Amazotheamazing

Not intending to be a back seat mod, but I think everyone should calm down and refrain from the petty sniping that seems to be occurring as a substitute for discussion. I know people's emotions are high on this issue but frankly the exchanges on both sides strike me as childish and unprofessional.

With respect to McCrack and Elgran, the others have been very forthright in explaining the experience behind reasonings, TD has 10 years experience, Maximillian has his own firm, Nuac has 30 years experience, I am a trainee, dats_right and dazz are trainee's too, Johnny Utah has completed a degree and is looking for a contract etc. Obviously the uninformed reader will place more faith in those who are upfront with their experience etc than those who are reluctant to be so upfront.

It's worth mentioning, imo, that Solicitor's suffer from a reputation for overcharging but how valid is this reputation in today's climate? Do you think you could charge 300 per hour for every PIAB application, or every EAT submission, or every conveyance. Imo, and again, I am not hugely experienced, you simply cannot. And then there is the matter of family law, where you have to act as not just a legal advisor, but also a counsellor and confident of the client, do you think you could really charge 300 per hour for the work of drafting affidavits, sifting through Discovery, Orders, motions and finally a Court appearance?

McCrack

I could say I'm Chief Justice John Murray, in fact I could say or claim to be anybody on this forum, the point being it doesnt matter and to be honest I take people with a pinch of salt on internet discussions.

My age, experience, credentials and anybody elses for that matter is irrelevant, suffice to say I work in the business and my comments on this thread are from personal experience.....but you only have my word for that.

And for the record and anybody who works in the area will know and have come across them, there are lawyers out there with many many years PQE who in fact are simply useless and inept and one wonders how in fact they ever qualified...I suspect there might be one or two floating about somewhere out in cyberspace.

nuac

I agree that there tends to be more legal disputes in times of recession. I have worked and survived through a number of recessions. I also agree that if you can only do 1000 to 1200 billable hours a year that about €300 an hour would be needed to cover salary and all the usual overheads etc. Many solicitors put in more hours than that.

From my experience most clients who are ordinary citizens are unable to pay at the rate of €300 an hour for legal services. Even corporates and various public bodies would query those rates. To properly prepare and progress any legal action of any substance requires many, many many hours of work. My experience from many taxations and negotiations of costs is that fees at that level are rarely if ever recovered in the usual run of cases..

Our clients during difficult times do have many difficulties which require a lot of their legal advisers' time and energy. Therefore most offices are busy, but their accountant will tell them that they are not recovering their full overhead expenses and adequate salaries for fee earners..

Criminal legal aid can pay reasonably well if one is doing a reasonable volume, and if the judges dealing with it get through their lists reasonable efficiently.. However in each area that work gravitates to a small number of advocates.

I have spoken to many people interested in legal careers and their parents. In general those outside the legal professions have an exaggerated impression of the possible earning potential and status in law these days.

Amazotheamazing

McCrack wrote: »

I could say I'm Chief Justice John Murray, in fact I could say or claim to be anybody on this forum, the point being it doesnt matter and to be honest I take people with a pinch of salt on internet discussions.

My age, experience, credentials and anybody elses for that matter is irrelevant, suffice to say I work in the business and my comments on this thread are from personal experience.....but you only have my word for that.

And for the record and anybody who works in the area will know and have come across them, there are lawyers out there with many many years PQE who in fact are simply useless and inept and one wonders how in fact they ever qualified...I suspect there might be one or two floating about somewhere out in cyberspace.

I have somehow acquired the impression you are only recently qualified or have not yet qualified, so you have to appreciate I'm a little skeptical over what insight you can have over a firm's costs for example. Frankly, I think someone's credentials are important when discussing this type of stuff. If you have very little experience you should acknowledge you are posting from a point of view without any great insight.

Still waiting for a qualified solicitor to log in an disagree with the reasonable viewpoints of the qualified solicitors.

sceptre

Johnny Utah wrote: »

But below cost selling is illegal too, if it has the effect of wiping out competitors.

It's not as though solicitors were ever subject to the Groceries Order.

TheDemiurge wrote: »

If it charges only 995 Euro for a conveyance, then is he saying that he's only spending 3 hours on a conveyance? If so, he's not doing his job properly.

In the case of a property on the land registry, does it really take 6 or 7 hours? I didn't go into legal-land so I've no idea really but I'm assuming that those complicated properties in Dublin city take a long time whereas the LR properties are closer to click click boom.

Amazotheamazing

elgransenor wrote: »

Thanks for your kind offer re letting me take over your files.
However I will not be able to at this point in time as
I AM TOO BUSY;)

According to your earlier posts, you have just started PPC1, it's possible the recession will be over by the time you actually qualify. Eitherway, it's hard to take you seriously when your own experience is relatively miniscule compared to those who you are in a rush to dismiss, mature student or not.

TheDemiurge

McCrack wrote: »

And for the record and anybody who works in the area will know and have come across them, there are lawyers out there with many many years PQE who in fact are simply useless and inept and one wonders how in fact they ever qualified...I suspect there might be one or two floating about somewhere out in cyberspace.

I have no option but to conclude that this final sentence is directed was me, given that its addition was totally unnecessary to make your point.

I'm delighted that I read you correctly - legal aid is only sure way of getting paid for hours of litigation.

And you haven't answered my question about whether you do three hours work, or six hours work, on a conveyance.

TheDemiurge

sceptre wrote: »

In the case of a property on the land registry, does it really take 6 or 7 hours? I didn't go into legal-land so I've no idea really but I'm assuming that those complicated properties in Dublin city take a long time whereas the LR properties are closer to click click boom.

Solicitors like McCrack have given you the impression by charging 995 Euro that it's click click boom and that's the problem facing many legal practices now. Do you drop your fees, cut corners and cross your fingers that all will work out for the best? Or do you do the job correctly, and engage in many hours of work unpaid?

The straight answer is, yes. According to McCrack I am useless and inept but to those willing to listen to a solicitor with ten years experience in practice and whose business is comprised entirely of referrals let it be said that a conveyance takes a minimum of six to seven hours to be done correctly.

When a client appoints you, and pays a booking deposit on a house, the title documentation is sent to you, together with the contracts. It is often voluminous and must be read carefully, line by line. You have to allow one hour for this at least. Any queries about what's been sent to you must be then drafted and sent to the solicitor on the other side. (For the record, I'm now seeing the fallout from shoddy workmanship done within the last two to three years, when properties come back on the market, and I can only imagine it will get worse.)

Then you have to have a consultation with your client to sign and explain everything including the terms of their loan offer (you do the bank's legal work for free as a result of the Boland Regulations implemented in 1987, the impact of which most trainees don't fully understand) which also takes an hour and often an hour and a half. Then it is recommended to write to the client explaining everything you've said verbally.

You need to allow another hour to an hour and a half for requisitions on title, drafted the deed, getting the paperwork together and general ****ing around on the part of the client, estate agent and the lending institution.

Then you need to allow another hour to actually get the funds from the bank, administer them, close the transaction and make sure the documentation is correct and in order.

Then you need to allow another 30 mins for another appointment for the client to sign the final documentation.

Then you need to allow another hour to get everything registered in the Land Registry or Registry of Deeds, schedule the deeds upon completion and return to the lending institution.

And all of that is assuming no major flaws on title, amended loan offers, or difficult special conditions for the bank.

If you **** up then under the Boland Regulations because you certify title to the bank, if it's not right, they can sue you down the line. That's what happened with Michael Lynn and Thomas Byrne; subliminal anger at this system, which led to greed and a reckless attitude. The irony is that they attempted to take advantage of this system which was initially set up to shaft solicitors. I have plenty of sympathy for Michael Lynn's clients but zero sympathy for the banks. The Boland regulations have come back with a vengeance and royally bitten them and the Law Society on the arse.

Johnny Utah wrote: »

I thought that a fee schedule was quite normal for most professions. For example, I know a couple of doctors that practice in a town down the country. A foreign doctor opened up his own practice and charged 10 euro less than everyone else for an appointment. Let's say the GPs were charging 60euro- they were all charging the same fee, except for this new doctor. Well, the other doctors were furious with this, and basically just shunned him. There was an out-of-hours service for all the GPs, but the foreign doctor wasn't allowed to refer his patients to this service.

You're on the button here. All other solicitors should have refused to deal with the one firm that started this in mid 2004. I do that myself with two firms; one that charges an immoral 675 plus VAT for a conveyance, and another that charges 700 plus VAT. They cut corners and don't engage in active negotiations which in turn pushes up the amount of work and time that I have to expend driving the transaction and explaining to my client that the delays are not my fault.

There's also another point here that has gone unmentioned - in how many of these firms are secretaries actually doing this work?

nuac

Good post Demiurge, saying how it is practice.

The compuetisation of the Property Registration Authority is of some help but that has been counterbalnaced by the increasing complexity of issues relating to Planning, Building Control, Family Law and the inceasingly complicated structures for apartment sales.

Gangu

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

I have somehow acquired the impression you are only recently qualified or have not yet qualified, so you have to appreciate I'm a little skeptical over what insight you can have over a firm's costs for example. Frankly, I think someone's credentials are important when discussing this type of stuff. If you have very little experience you should acknowledge you are posting from a point of view without any great insight.

Still waiting for a qualified solicitor to log in an disagree with the reasonable viewpoints of the qualified solicitors.

One minute you are accusing those on the thread of pettiness, then you engage in personal attacks. Why not discuss the substance of his arguments rather than having a go. I deeply disagree with him, but respect his right to discuss the points that he has made.

Gangu

TheDemiurge wrote: »

You're on the button here. All other solicitors should have refused to deal with the one firm that started this in mid 2004. I do that myself with two firms; one that charges an immoral 675 plus VAT for a conveyance, and another that charges 700 plus VAT. They cut corners and don't engage in active negotiations which in turn pushes up the amount of work and time that I have to expend driving the transaction and explaining to my client that the delays are not my fault.

There's also another point here that has gone unmentioned - in how many of these firms are secretaries actually doing this work?

I am a commercial lawyer, so I do not deal with conveyancing, probate or general litigation. Even so you don still come across those who, more and more, push the work back to you when dealing with them. It is depressing when you are trying to be cost effective and efficient for your own client, but you encounter those on the other side who try to push the drafting (and thus the cost) back to you and your client. It is something I resist as much as I can, but it further complicates the process.

dazza21ie

TheDemiurge wrote: »

You're on the button here. All other solicitors should have refused to deal with the one firm that started this in mid 2004. I do that myself with two firms; one that charges an immoral 675 plus VAT for a conveyance, and another that charges 700 plus VAT.

Is this the guy or is immorality spreading through the profession?

Amazotheamazing

Gangu wrote: »

One minute you are accusing those on the thread of pettiness, then you engage in personal attacks. Why not discuss the substance of his arguments rather than having a go. I deeply disagree with him, but respect his right to discuss the points that he has made.

With respect, how is asking for someone to clarify their credentials a personal attack? I explained, fairly clearly I thought, why I consider experience important in this matter.

McCrack

Gangu wrote: »

One minute you are accusing those on the thread of pettiness, then you engage in personal attacks. Why not discuss the substance of his arguments rather than having a go. I deeply disagree with him, but respect his right to discuss the points that he has made.

Fristly an assumption I'm male :rolleyes:, look the way it is I'm not going to engage with this "I know better" attitude because I claim to have X amount of PQE on an annonymous internet discussion forum.

Like I said earlier I could claim to be John L Murray if I wanted so I take what anybody says on this thing with regard to their experience/credentials with a pinch of salt, I'm concerned with informed and constructed opinions/argument not "well so-in-so says this and he says he has 25years experience so therefore he's right or better informed." Its bollocks and childish.

Em secondly my comments about useless and inept lawyers which anybody working in the business has come across was not directed at anybody but for reasons of suspicion and/or paranoia TheDeriurge felt I was directing that at him/her and accused me of.
I stated this to make the point that just because a lawyer has say 25 years PQE doesnt make them a better professional, I know lawyers with this experience who I just wouldnt trust and avoid them if at all possible, quite frankly they rank as idiots. The legal profession is all about reputation in Ireland and it's such a small circle the crap lawyers are weeded out and becomes common knowledge who they are.

My opinions/arguments have already been stated in previous posts. I really dont have anything further to add.

Johnny Utah

TheDemiurge wrote: »

You're on the button here. All other solicitors should have refused to deal with the one firm that started this in mid 2004. I do that myself with two firms; one that charges an immoral 675 plus VAT for a conveyance, and another that charges 700 plus VAT. They cut corners and don't engage in active negotiations which in turn pushes up the amount of work and time that I have to expend driving the transaction and explaining to my client that the delays are not my fault.

There's also another point here that has gone unmentioned - in how many of these firms are secretaries actually doing this work?

TheDemiurge,

If a solicitor spends seven hours on a conveyance, and charges 700 euro + outlay, how much of that fee is pure profit?




And regarding the Boland Regulations, why didn't the Law Society try to strike a fair deal for solicitors when they were being introduced?

Gangu

McCrack wrote: »

Fristly an assumption I'm male :rolleyes:.

Sorry about that McCrack.

TheDemiurge

Johnny Utah wrote: »

TheDemiurge,

If a solicitor spends seven hours on a conveyance, and charges 700 euro + outlay, how much of that fee is pure profit?

Zero. Ergo he's doing it wrong and crossing his fingers that everything will work out for the best. Proof of the pudding is the number of complaints against solicitors soaring and a huge increase in TitleGuard insurance policies being taken out to cover crap work done approximately two years ago.

E-conveyancing is also immiment; solicitors should think of it as the Final Solution against them. Fees will plummet down to approximately 99 Euro plus VAT for a conveyance, but inevitably there will be teething problems which will see solicitors incurring hours of retrospective unbilled work tidying up the mess. And the Law Society has the cheek to set up a conference to explain it all, charging 225 Euro to its own members who've already paid 2,000 Euro practising certificatefor the privilege of attending.

Johnny Utah wrote: »

And regarding the Boland Regulations, why didn't the Law Society try to strike a fair deal for solicitors when they were being introduced?

I don't want to say too much as to what I think happened here as it might get boards.ie in trouble but suffice to say that I don't believe there's much interconnectivity between the Law Society and small to medium sized firms. Solicitors need an independent body of their own to represent them; not the Law Society who currently are the regulators.

And people like Philip Burke of Independent Colleges just make me wretch; he was quoted in the Business Post on Sunday as saying that people flock to the professions in a recession (true - what silly billies) and that NQ solicitors are currently commanding in the mid-50s so it's a good time to go into law. It's the qualify/teach/qualify/teach pyramid scheme at work again, preying on recessionary fears of middle class parents.

I am so so so seething with pure anger and rage, although that is obvious already. I feel so totally and utterly ripped off on every level.

Amazotheamazing

TheDemiurge wrote: »

And people like Philip Burke of Independent Colleges just make me wretch; he was quoted in the Business Post on Sunday as saying that people flock to the professions in a recession (true - what silly billies) and that NQ solicitors are currently commanding in the mid-50s so it's a good time to go into law. It's the qualify/teach/qualify/teach pyramid scheme at work again, preying on recessionary fears of middle class parents..

You'll be glad to know that the speaker from Fair and Murtagh solicitors who gave us a lecture on Financial management is expecting the wages for NQ's to drop to 30,000 in the next year, though even that might be optimistic as I know of people who are being kept on at apprentice wages.

£30k isn't a bad wage of course, but it's some distance from 50-60k.

BanzaiBk

I might not have enough "experience" to post in this thread, but €675 plus VAT for conveyance? :eek:

*cheerios spattered all over my desk*

TheDemiurge

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

You'll be glad to know that the speaker from Fair and Murtagh solicitors who gave us a lecture on Financial management is expecting the wages for NQ's to drop to 30,000 in the next year, though even that might be optimistic as I know of people who are being kept on at apprentice wages.

£30k isn't a bad wage of course, but it's some distance from 50-60k.

You're right about 30k Euro. I saw a role advertised within the last two days in somewhere I used to work and they are paying 32k.

TheDemiurge

BanzaiBk wrote: »

I might not have enough "experience" to post in this thread, but €675 plus VAT for conveyance? :eek:

*cheerios spattered all over my desk*

Yup. And going to fall further when e-conveyancing comes in.

With all of the same responsibilities and exposure of course.

dats_right

I haven't really being following the e-conveyancing developments all that closely, and whilst I can envisage how the transfer of an entire folio could be effected in this way, what about the transfer of part thereof or creating wayleaves or easements and the likes, how will you be able to do that online? Or what about certs of compliance with planning/building regs, Grants of Permission and roads in charge letters, CGT/CAT Clearance, Homebond/Premier docs and the whole range of other docs that one encounters in a typical conveyance (incl loan offers, undertakings and certs of title [sorry demiurge, I know that your not a fan of certifying title to the banks!]), what is proposed in this regard? Point is that, unless I'm mistaken there will still have to be a significant amount of paper doscuments, which sort of defeats the purpose of e-conveyancing doesn't it?

Sangre

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

£30k isn't a bad wage of course, but it's some distance from 50-60k.

Personally I think its a pretty terrible wage after for a profession that takes about 6/7 years to qualify from.

Rhonda9000

dats_right wrote: »

I haven't really being following the e-conveyancing developments all that closely, and whilst I can envisage how the transfer of an entire folio could be effected in this way, what about the transfer of part thereof or creating wayleaves or easements and the likes, how will you be able to do that online? Or what about certs of compliance with planning/building regs, Grants of Permission and roads in charge letters, CGT/CAT Clearance, Homebond/Premier docs and the whole range of other docs that one encounters in a typical conveyance (incl loan offers, undertakings and certs of title [sorry demiurge, I know that your not a fan of certifying title to the banks!]), what is proposed in this regard? Point is that, unless I'm mistaken there will still have to be a significant amount of paper doscuments, which sort of defeats the purpose of e-conveyancing doesn't it?

I was under the impression the central point of it was comprehensive land registration and the elimination of the conveyancing gap / lag time, and that any e.g. environmental bonuses like less paper were incidental to these aims... may be mistaken however.

TheDemiurge

dats_right wrote: »

I haven't really being following the e-conveyancing developments all that closely, and whilst I can envisage how the transfer of an entire folio could be effected in this way, what about the transfer of part thereof or creating wayleaves or easements and the likes, how will you be able to do that online? Or what about certs of compliance with planning/building regs, Grants of Permission and roads in charge letters, CGT/CAT Clearance, Homebond/Premier docs and the whole range of other docs that one encounters in a typical conveyance (incl loan offers, undertakings and certs of title [sorry demiurge, I know that your not a fan of certifying title to the banks!]), what is proposed in this regard? Point is that, unless I'm mistaken there will still have to be a significant amount of paper doscuments, which sort of defeats the purpose of e-conveyancing doesn't it?

The possibilities for fraud are endless. I'm dreading the thought of sorting out the mess of others.

Ri na hEireann

Sangre wrote: »

Personally I think its a pretty terrible wage after for a profession that takes about 6/7 years to qualify from.

Totally agree...I'm a first-year Law student in UCC (d0n't be too hard on me). I know I have a long road ahead of me and that kind of money would most certainly not be worth all the effort.

Johnny Utah

TheDemiurge wrote: »

Zero. Ergo he's doing it wrong and crossing his fingers that everything will work out for the best. Proof of the pudding is the number of complaints against solicitors soaring and a huge increase in TitleGuard insurance policies being taken out to cover crap work done approximately two years ago.

E-conveyancing is also immiment; solicitors should think of it as the Final Solution against them. Fees will plummet down to approximately 99 Euro plus VAT for a conveyance, but inevitably there will be teething problems which will see solicitors incurring hours of retrospective unbilled work tidying up the mess. And the Law Society has the cheek to set up a conference to explain it all, charging 225 Euro to its own members who've already paid 2,000 Euro practising certificatefor the privilege of attending.


I don't want to say too much as to what I think happened here as it might get boards.ie in trouble but suffice to say that I don't believe there's much interconnectivity between the Law Society and small to medium sized firms. Solicitors need an independent body of their own to represent them; not the Law Society who currently are the regulators..

I agree that the Law Society are a very poor representative body for solicitors. If you look on their website, one of their functions is to represent solicitors, something which they are either incapable or not interested in doing.

Look at the GRA when the Garda Reserve was first mentioned. They did everything in their power to oppose its introduction (probably because they knew its members would lose overtime). In any event, they represented the interests of its members. Every other union/representative body in the country does its best to represent its members, but the Law Society is so afraid of its shadow that it sits on its hands and does nothing.:mad:

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

You'll be glad to know that the speaker from Fair and Murtagh solicitors who gave us a lecture on Financial management is expecting the wages for NQ's to drop to 30,000 in the next year, though even that might be optimistic as I know of people who are being kept on at apprentice wages.

£30k isn't a bad wage of course, but it's some distance from 50-60k.

30k is a crap wage when you consider it takes the bones of 10 years to qualify as a solicitor. You'd probably earn more as a junior assistant manager in Tesco.

Maximilian

Johnny Utah wrote: »

I agree that the Law Society are a very poor representative body for solicitors. If you look on their website, one of their functions is to represent solicitors, something which they are either incapable or not interested in doing.
(

I don't think the Law Society are really a representative body for solicitors at all. They are more one for the profession as a whole if that makes sense and of course a regulatory & education body.

The various Bar Associations should fulfil that role I think. The problem is you often find however is that the Bar Assoc. representatives often sit on Law Soc. committees too.

I remember at one DSBA meeting (and I heard this second hand) over one particular issue, a solicitor stood up to complain about the way the Law Society was handling something. It was quite a heated meeting. Apparently most if not all the DSBA representatives excused themselves because they were also sitting on Law Soc committess and were conflicted or whatever. So who stands up for the average solicitor and makes their opinions known? I don't really think anyone does.

I'd be happy to see the representative aspect of the Law Soc split out into a new body independent of its other functions.

Gangu

The standard of the recent materials circulated by those looking to be elected as Law Society representatives is, quite frankly, appalling.

nuac

Not all Bar Association officers are involved in Law Society Council and committees. DSBA may be an exception as it is easier for someone based in Dublin to get to meetings in Blackhall in comparison to someone down the country. Solicitors based a distance from Dublin find it difficult to make time for all the travelling involved.

The LS does a lot of useful representational work for the profession as a whole, lobbying and in some cases getting involved in litigation.

Because of it's regulatory role, it cannot represent individual solicitors up before the usual committees - there are a number of solicitors who undertake this.

I do not agree with Gangu's comments re quality of the letters from the current candidates for the Council. Those of them that I know would be very capable representatives.

( am not a member of LS council or any committee )

Gangu

nuac wrote: »

I do not agree with Gangu's comments re quality of the letters from the current candidates for the Council. Those of them that I know would be very capable representatives.

( am not a member of LS council or any committee )

Almost all of them had nothing to say about what the profession is facing at the moment. Telling me about how many meetings that they have attended in the last year or what area they are from geographically, quite frankly, leaves me cold and a little depressed. Putting together a letter that is well written, in plain English and grammatically correct would be comforting for a start, in terms of a pitch.

TheDemiurge

Totally in agreement Gangu. Apart from one candidate's literature the rest was pitiful.

They obviously have their money made in other ways and going on the Committee is just opportunity for photo ops with Government ministers whilst quaffing champagne (at our expense).