Legal Services Commission

bob_lob_law

I saw this posted over on irisheconomy.ie and thought I would raise it here:

http://www.sbpost.ie/businessoflaw/imf-deal-can-change-irish-legal-system-for-the-better-53370.html

While increased access to justice and a reduction in fees is commendable, the prospect of even more solicitors and barristers in Ireland doesn't exactly inspire confidence given the current state of the legal market. The article also fails to deal with the high cost of indemnity insurance, which further detracts from the credibility of the proposals, in my opinion.

Coming from a position of limited knowledge and experience, I was wondering what everyone else thinks of the proposals?

Kosseegan

With over 1000 unemployed solicitors, how does increasing the numbers of solicitors qualifying contribute to bringing down fees?
There have always been more barristers than there was work available. How does creating even more barristers cause fees charged to fall. Barristers already can and do pool resources. Where is the saving?
Direct access for legal opinions may not result in very much saving either. Rather than a barrister getting a summary of the facts and a list of questions from the solicitor, the barrister would have to interview the client and then deliver the opinion and possibly explain it to the client. The cost of opinions would triple.
The same geniuses who want to reduce legal costs also propose abolishing the Law Reform Commission. What would bring down legal costs would be to tidy up the Statute Book. Legislation should be consolidated properly, should be coherent enough to be understood by a reasonably educated lay person and should be accessible.

johnnyskeleton

SBP wrote:

The work envisaged for the LSC falls into three categories. First, a report in 2005 recommended that the LSC set guidelines that would assess costs by reference to the work actually and appropriately done.

Isn't that already more or less the case? Really what they are proposing is a per hour basis as opposed to a per day or global fee basis for charing fees. However, that doesn't really make sense either.

The basis upon which fees are paid is an interesting issue, but unfortunately the people who look at it rarely see the big picture. Although it appears on paper that a brief fee and an instruction fee magically become due at the point at which a case is, for example, settled and ruled before a judge, these fees take into account all the work done up to that point.

There is something to be said for fees being paid based on a form of an average payment. This compensates long cases with short cases and removes the risk that fees might be unnecessarily increased by unnecessary extra hours of work.

Also, having a fixed fee is good for a client too. They could agree to pay say €1,000 for a solicitor to do a drink driving case and the solicitor might get it done in half a day. But equally a solicitor might have to keep coming back into court for adjournments and the like. There is no way to know, and for a client it is better to pay €1,000 to be certain of a case being dealt with rather than paying €500 per day in something that could drag out for several days.

Although it would be anti competitive in law, perhaps the best way to achieve a form of legal costs reduction or transparency would be to create an official scale for all legal costs. Thus, anyone who wants a L'Oreal Solicitor can agree to pay twice, or even three times scale. Equally, a new solicitor wanting to undercut the market can advertise fairly easily that they charge -20% of scale. Finally, at present few people know what legal fees should be, but a scale can give them an idea of what to expect and give them a better bargaining position. Orders of costs inter parties could be dealt with on the basis of the scale and, in exceptional cases, the lawyers could argue that fees should be charged above or below scale depending on the complexity and other matters.

This would no doubt be rejected by the competition authority because it is a form of price fixing, but it seems to me to be a much more sensible way to approach the issue of legal costs rather than the esoteric measures they are proposing. IMO, a per hour basis will only increase the cost of certain types of cases which require a lot of time but aren't that complicated.

SBP wrote:

The IMF memorandum required that this report be implemented to result in significantly lower costs in the short term.

I don't really see anything in it that would decrease costs in the short term.

SBP wrote:

The second thing to do is to reform the legal profession to remove or reduce the structures that keep costs high.

Most of which have already been removed.

SBP wrote:

For example, the liberalisation of conveyancing services could reduce costs in the housing market.

Unlikely to attract many new comers, and the profession will be utterly destroyed every time there is a collapse in the housing market. Solicitors who did mostly conveyancing during the bubble have had to change to other areas or sink. These conveyancing only people would only sink. However, this would probably be a very good thing for non conveyancing solicitors because their insurance costs would drop dramatically.

SBP wrote:

The removal of restrictions on switching solicitors would encourage price-sensitive clients to move to solicitors offering better rates.

You can switch solicitors at any time without question. However, if you want to take the old solicitor's work with you to the new solicitor, you have to pay them for that work. This makes sense. Also, changing solicitors mid stream is a non runner because it essentially incurs two legal bills instead of one. IMO people should shop around for the best quote before they engage the solicitor.

SBP wrote:

Allowing clients to have direct access to barristers for legal advice, rather than having to go via a solicitor, would mean that clients would only pay one lawyer for legal advice, rather than two.

Essentially bluring the lines between barristers and solicitors. Would anyone be able to do so, or would it only be certain bodies (like the current direct professional access scheme)? Without proper support structures, it would be difficult to work. How is a client supposed to know who is a specialist barrister in a particular area? Also would this direct advice be advice on whether to litigate or not? If so, is this not ultimately leading to the removal of the distinction between the professions altogether?

SBP wrote:

Allowing barristers to operate in groups, chambers or partnerships, rather than as sole traders, would allow them to pool resources and reduce costs.

The law library is effectively one big chambers. Many barristers have offices in the same suite and it is suggested by some (there was a thread on this many moons ago) that this is a de facto form of a chambers system.

One of the recommendations not mentioned in the newspaper report is that solicitors, barristers and even accountants would work together in the same firms, pooling all their resources as a one stop shop. IMO this is highly unlikely to happen.

It seems to me that you either force the legal profession into a fused profession or you leave it as it is. I can't imagine any particular impetus for change at the moment.

johnnyskeleton

Interesting comments on the article here:

http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2010/12/13/imf-deal-can-change-irish-legal-system-for-the-better/

Previous thread on chambers here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055139898

nuac

I agree with Kosseegan re Irish Statute Law.

Many problems require a review of a succession of Acts, repeals and amendments, plus various Statutory Instruments.

E.g every citizen is entitled to know how (s)he is taxed. To check the position re a particular to liability to a particular tax a succession of Finance Acts has to be consulted

The granting and operation of pub licences is comprised in legislation going back to the 1830's.

Re Rates, while the Valuatioin Act 2001 did modernise the system of valuing properties for rates, the collection procedures go back to 1836 legislation.

There are now a lot of unemployed and underemployed lawyers - the Govt should seek tenders for codification of above and similar legislation..

Re fees
- not sure about an hourly rate. A lawyer proficient in a particular area of law can deal with a problem quicker than a lawyer unfamiliar with that particular area of law. the lawyer who is more experienced in that area is entitled to be paid for such skill and experience..

Re competition -
It amuses me to hear calls for yet more lawyers to reducde prices and enhance competition. Every reasonably sized town has a number of offices, all in competitiion with each other. Barrristers' number has also substantially increased.

Re legal training.

I would not be in favour of farming out the training of practising lawyers to academic institutions. I have read some lecture notes by academics. Some show a complete ignorance of actual practice. .

Victor

Kosseegan wrote: »

There have always been more barristers than there was work available. How does creating even more barristers cause fees charged to fall. Barristers already can and do pool resources. Where is the saving?
Direct access for legal opinions may not result in very much saving either. Rather than a barrister getting a summary of the facts and a list of questions from the solicitor, the barrister would have to interview the client and then deliver the opinion and possibly explain it to the client. The cost of opinions would triple.

Are you being blind to the solution?

There are too many barristers - let us say they work on average 20 hours and earn 1,000 euros per week.

So, one alternative would be to allow direct access, cutting out the solicitor middle-man, the barrister works 40 hours per week and earns 2,000 euros per week.

Sure, the solicitor loses, but the barrister gains a full week's work and more pay and the client gains in having direct access to the barrister and not having the solicitor making mistakes.

Delancey

Certainly the idea of allowing direct access to Barristers has to be a good thing - I always thought the requirement to go via a solicitor smacked of a ' cosy cartel '.
I would think the idea of a Legal Services Commission taking over the regulation of the legal profession would be welcomed by many , this forum is full of posts from solicitors questioning the dual role of the Law Society as both a representative body and a regulator. Hiving off regulation would probably instil greated public confidence in the system as well as allow the society to focus on its member's interests - something many lone practitioners feel it does not currently do.

johnnyskeleton

nuac wrote: »

There are now a lot of unemployed and underemployed lawyers - the Govt should seek tenders for codification of above and similar legislation.

That would be a good idea, but I think the problem lies with politics rather than the actual work involved in codifying the law. A new criminal code, for example, will require a significant debate in the dail and it is not exactly a vote winner. Politicians are focussed almost entirely on the economy (the exception being the greens and their fox hunting bans). Any slight change to the law in such a code would have to be debated thoroughly and there would be endless amendments by the various parties wishing to be seen as tough on crime.

Plus, there is already a bunch working on this:

http://www.criminalcode.ie/website/clcac/clcac.nsf/page/whatwedo-en

That group has been at it for years, perhaps more than a decade, and hasn't really produced anything. Plus, most of the work has already been done by David Goldberg S.C. It seems to me that with the help of his book of statute law and maybe a couple of week's work they could trash out an actual criminal code.

nuac wrote: »

Re fees
- not sure about an hourly rate. A lawyer proficient in a particular area of law can deal with a problem quicker than a lawyer unfamiliar with that particular area of law. the lawyer who is more experienced in that area is entitled to be paid for such skill and experience..

I agree, and there are also benefits to our system in that it discourages waste and gives clients certainty (well, a kind of certainty) as to what they will ultimately pay.

Let's take the example of the criminal law codification project. Lets say they estimate it will take 100 hours. Suppose one person tenders for that at a rate of €20 per hour and another as a global fee of €2,000 (the same calculation more or less). Now, suppose the person who does it for a global fee gets it done in 50 hours. On the face of it they get paid €40 per hour but the job is done in half the time. By contrast, the person who is on an hourly rate will aim to fit the work into 100 hours rathar than try to get it done as quickly as possible, and indeed they may overrun the 100 hours and thus the state ends up paying more and waiting longer.

The reason I posted the link to Irish economy is that there is one reply in particular that I found interesting:

[quote=zhou_enlai[/quote]At a time when the rest of the world is trying to force lawyers to move away from time based billing to fxed fees to reduce transaction costs we will be moving towards time based costs. Good for lawyers anyway![/quote]

I don't know anything about the moves in the rest of the world to fixed fees, but it does seem to make sense. I think that the competition authority have used inductive reasoning to come to their conclusion - lawyers earn lots of money, earning lots of money is a sign of anti-competitiveness, therefore by reducing lawyer's earnings we are making things more competitive.

Obviously the most efficient lawyers who can deal with cases quickly will earn the most money. There is of course a risk that this will encourage lawyers to settle cases or plead guilty against their client's wishes but that's a matter for the law society. Again, there is the risk that such lawyers will only take on the cases with the most liklihood of success, but that's not something that can ever really be cured.

However, a move to time based billing will move against this. A good example would be adjourned hearing dates, which very often will not tax before the taxing master. So a case could be listed for hearing 5 times with no realistic possibility of getting heard and it doesn't command significantly higher fees than a case that is heard on the first day of hearing. Under an hourly basis, this case would be taxed on the basis of each adjournment costing however many hours (or days in court if measured like that).

Also, every time a client calls his solicitor, the solicitor would then be entitled to bill for it.

Perhaps a compromise position would be where fees are charged but a separate approximation of the hours involved could be put before the taxing master.

nuac wrote: »

Re competition -
It amuses me to hear calls for yet more lawyers to reducde prices and enhance competition. Every reasonably sized town has a number of offices, all in competitiion with each other. Barrristers' number has also substantially increased.

There have been many casualties in the Solicitor's profession but the bar doesn't seem to be as badly hit. This is perhaps due to the drop off in conveyancing and the increases in insurance. In any event, the apocalyptic view of the bar being oversubscribed does not seem to have come to pass. While the smaller solicitors firms are being disproportinately hit, the bigger firms are doing quite well from examinership, insolvency, repossessions, NAMA etc. There is thus a concentration of power in the larger firms, ably assisted of course by the requirement on the law society to turn out as many apprentice solicitors who can be billed out by these large firms at a higher rate. Hardly in the best interests of competition, eh?

However, the increased numbers of solicitors has reduced their wages thus arguably making it more competitive to hire associates. By contrast, the increased numbers in the bar has led to more of a spreading out of the work. This has meant earnings across the numbers become more equal (which the competition authority will trumpet as a success) but does not really reduce fees as the fees charged are still based on whatever will pass taxation and there is little incentive in litigation to agree fees in advance. Bring in hourly rates, and the situation is primed to have cases taking a lot longer and costing more.

nuac wrote:

Re legal training.

I would not be in favour of farming out the training of practising lawyers to academic institutions. I have read some lecture notes by academics. Some show a complete ignorance of actual practice. .

I think the idea would be that if there is dissatisfaction with the Law Society and Kings Inns, that new professional training colleges would spring up, staffed mostly by practitioners rather than academics.

Victor wrote: »

Are you being blind to the solution?

There are too many barristers - let us say they work on average 20 hours and earn 1,000 euros per week.

So, one alternative would be to allow direct access, cutting out the solicitor middle-man, the barrister works 40 hours per week and earns 2,000 euros per week.

Sure, the solicitor loses, but the barrister gains a full week's work and more pay and the client gains in having direct access to the barrister and not having the solicitor making mistakes.

On the contrary, it would most likely have the opposite effect. First, most barristers don't have the support structures in place to be meeting clients regularly, having secretaries to answer phonecalls and deal with appointments etc. So logistically it would be very hard for barristers to give direct access to joe blogs without effectively setting up offices similar to solicitors offices with staff (support and associate lawyers) to deal with it.

Second, direct access would mean that clients could be ringing up commercial senior counsel to deal with unrenewed dog licence cases, and criminal juniors to deal with highly technical planning cases. A client will find it hard to assess a barrister's ability and expertise, and a barrister is unlikely to refuse work however it comes to him/her. Thus, there would be a lot of unpaid administrative effort by barristers who would be getting calls in relation to cases that they will not take. Solicitors, by contrast, have the capacity to deal with any case that they are presented with, and have the benefit of selecting a barrister with specialised knowledge as required.

Third, ignoring the administrative costs and additional time spent dealing with unnecessary enquiries, if they can directly advise clients then barrister's insurance would skyrocket, just like solicitors.

So the example you give of an underworked but good junior earning €1k per week and working 20 hours would not benefit greatly from working 40 hours for €2k p.w. (more realistically €1.5k because much of the additional work will be unpaid as set out above) but having to spend an additional €1k p.w. on administration, wages, rent of offices and increased insurance.

The situation is even worse for someone who is just starting at the bar, who will have to invest heavily on these expenses upfront or else be at a competitive disadvantage.

Victor

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

On the contrary, it would most likely have the opposite effect. First, most barristers don't have the support structures in place to be meeting clients regularly, having secretaries to answer phonecalls and deal with appointments etc. So logistically it would be very hard for barristers to give direct access to joe blogs without effectively setting up offices similar to solicitors offices with staff (support and associate lawyers) to deal with it.

Are you saying some of the brightest(?) minds in the country don't have the wherewithal to rent a meeting room or two and hire a secretary between a bunch of them?

Second, direct access would mean that clients could be ringing up commercial senior counsel to deal with unrenewed dog licence cases,

Then either (a) don't put your name in the golden pages in such a way that Joe Bloggs can find you (b) use your secretary to run interference (c) give them a quote of your €300/hour rate. How do you think the rest of the world survives? Many businesses receive queries from members of the public on matters that on the face of it Joe Bloggs thinks they can do, but because of industry-related subtleties, they can't. Are you saying that if I walk in to Spar and ask for a bus ticker, but that shop doesn't sell bus tickets (but they can recommend the shop around the corner), that somehow Spar will suddenly make a huge, unsustainable loss? And that it won't occur ot the Spar staff and management "Maybe we should stock bus tickets. If we put out minds together, we could arrange it".

and criminal juniors to deal with highly technical planning cases.

There is a market for that. :pac:

A client will find it hard to assess a barrister's ability and expertise, and a barrister is unlikely to refuse work however it comes to him/her. Thus, there would be a lot of unpaid administrative effort by barristers who would be getting calls in relation to cases that they will not take. Solicitors, by contrast, have the capacity to deal with any case that they are presented with, and have the benefit of selecting a barrister with specialised knowledge as required.

Then set up a relationship with a local solicitors practice whereby Mr. Barrister refers dog licence fines to Mr. Solicitor and Mr. Solicitor refers obtuse commercial law questions to Mr. Barrister.

But remember, you are dealing with people who don't have enough work to fill the week. Any extra work is welcome.

Third, ignoring the administrative costs and additional time spent dealing with unnecessary enquiries, if they can directly advise clients then barrister's insurance would skyrocket, just like solicitors.

Why so? Does talking to Joe Bloggs suddenly make barristers incompetent or negligent? Or is it that, even with spare time on their hands, they are unwilling to read-up / prepare for a case without a solicitor to hold their hand (I've been their, holding both their hands)?

So the example you give of an underworked but good junior earning €1k per week and working 20 hours would not benefit greatly from working 40 hours for €2k p.w. (more realistically €1.5k because much of the additional work will be unpaid as set out above) but having to spend an additional €1k p.w. on administration, wages, rent of offices and increased insurance.

Are you saying barristers are un-bright, incompetent, negligent and commercially unaware? Assuming that most barristers are paying for a cubbyhole somewhere, surely the difference between

(6 x cubbyhole)/ 6 barristers
and
(7 x cubbyhole + meeting room + secretary)/ 6 barristers

isn't vast?

The situation is even worse for someone who is just starting at the bar, who will have to invest heavily on these expenses upfront or else be at a competitive disadvantage.

How do you think accountants, doctors, dentists, architects, engineers and the like survive?

Victor

delancey42 wrote: »

this forum is full of posts from solicitors questioning the dual role of the Law Society as both a representative body and a regulator

And insurer!

johnnyskeleton

Victor wrote: »

Are you saying some of the brightest(?) minds in the country don't have the wherewithal to rent a meeting room or two and hire a secretary between a bunch of them?

I'm saying that for the vast majority of them, it would mean much additional expense with little marginal return.

Victor wrote: »

Then either (a) don't put your name in the golden pages in such a way that Joe Bloggs can find you (b) use your secretary to run interference (c) give them a quote of your €300/hour rate. How do you think the rest of the world survives?

If you do (a), then having direct access will make no difference. In (b) as stated you would need to get a secretary and pay her to manage the phones. Sometimes it is not that easy to get them to "run interference" and it requires a full consultation before the nature of their issues becomes apparent and (c) that's a good idea, but not really that great for when it comes to the purpose of direct access i.e. reducing the cost of legal services.

Victor wrote: »

Many businesses receive queries from members of the public on matters that on the face of it Joe Bloggs thinks they can do, but because of industry-related subtleties, they can't. Are you saying that if I walk in to Spar and ask for a bus ticker, but that shop doesn't sell bus tickets (but they can recommend the shop around the corner), that somehow Spar will suddenly make a huge, unsustainable loss? And that it won't occur ot the Spar staff and management "Maybe we should stock bus tickets. If we put out minds together, we could arrange it".

Not quite the same. It would be more equivalent to someone coming into a shop and talking for 20 minutes about the mechanisms of how a bus ticket works before you can get a word in edgeways.

Victor wrote: »

Then set up a relationship with a local solicitors practice whereby Mr. Barrister refers dog licence fines to Mr. Solicitor and Mr. Solicitor refers obtuse commercial law questions to Mr. Barrister.

Gets a bit circular then really doesn't it? Back to solicitors briefing counsel and so on

Victor wrote: »

But remember, you are dealing with people who don't have enough work to fill the week. Any extra work is welcome.

It's not extra work as such. It is barristers and solicitors essentially doing the same job rather than the split profession. Ok, it makes them compete against each other, but it means that barristers' overheads will rise to the same as those of solicitors. So they are getting extra work but paying more to get it than they get from it. Also, I think the point about the new entrants is a valid one - high entry costs is a barrier to competition.

Victor wrote: »

Why so? Does talking to Joe Bloggs suddenly make barristers incompetent or negligent? Or is it that, even with spare time on their hands, they are unwilling to read-up / prepare for a case without a solicitor to hold their hand (I've been their, holding both their hands)?

Barrister insurance is very low because there are very few claims made. Most claims arise from conveyancing issues and letting cases fall by the wayside. Barristers don't really deal with conveyancing at present, and they don't have charge of a case in the way a solicitor will have. There would probably be no difference in actual quality, but it's about how the insurance companies view this additional risk.

Victor wrote: »

Are you saying barristers are un-bright, incompetent, negligent and commercially unaware? Assuming that most barristers are paying for a cubbyhole somewhere, surely the difference between

(6 x cubbyhole)/ 6 barristers
and
(7 x cubbyhole + meeting room + secretary)/ 6 barristers

isn't vast?

At present, barristers can work out of the law library.

Here's an office in Capel Building. 15.5k on rent, 11.5k on rates and service, say 30k for a secretary and broadband, phones, stationary etc. So that's about 19k p.a. Without a secretary it is less than 10k. For someone like you suggest who is underworked and earning €1k a week, this is a significant amount of money.

http://www.daft.ie/searchcommercial.daft?id=40595

Victor wrote: »

How do you think accountants, doctors, dentists, architects, engineers and the like survive?

By charging high prices. If the purpose of the exercise is to reduce the levels of earings of lawyers, then direct access achieves that. If the purpose is to reduce the prices to consumers, then I'm not sure that increasing the costs of doing business is the correct way to go about it.

Victor

Do I detect a resistance because of the normal obligation to take all cases? Surely that would be refined?

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If you do (a), then having direct access will make no difference. In (b) as stated you would need to get a secretary and pay her to manage the phones. Sometimes it is not that easy to get them to "run interference" and it requires a full consultation before the nature of their issues becomes apparent and (c) that's a good idea, but not really that great for when it comes to the purpose of direct access i.e. reducing the cost of legal services.

Its a dog licence fine. Its 90 seconds on the phone to the secretary while Anto uses the Golden Pages to ring around to find the cheapest price.

Anto: Hi, I'm up in the district court next week, because I didn't have a dog licence for Jacinta.
Secretary: OK, while that isn't our usual type of work, we normally do commercial litigation...
Anto: De wha?
Secretary: We sue people for millions of euros.
Anto: Ah. [Penny dropping he might be phoning the wrong place]
Secretary: ... we could do it. Our usual charge is €X per hour, but we would have to charge for the whole morning in the district court, as you can never tell when a particular case will be called - that would work out at about €3X.
Anto: Eh, that's a bit much, would ye be able to do it a bit cheaper?
Secretary: I don't think so, but I could recommend someone who is regularly in the district court and they might be able to do something more more competitively would be the likes of Michael Hanahoe, Michael Staines, or Terence Lyons, or indeed there is a firm we do some work with called __________.

Not quite the same. It would be more equivalent to someone coming into a shop and talking for 20 minutes about the mechanisms of how a bus ticket works before you can get a word in edgeways.

I though that advocates would usually be able to speak up for themselves.

Gets a bit circular then really doesn't it? Back to solicitors briefing counsel and so on

No. Just refuse hte dog licence work. Refer it elsewhere. Do not get involved.

At present, barristers can work out of the law library.

**Cough** A hidden subsidy? **Cough**

Here's an office in Capel Building. 15.5k on rent, 11.5k on rates and service, say 30k for a secretary and broadband, phones, stationary etc. So that's about 19k p.a. Without a secretary it is less than 10k. For someone like you suggest who is underworked and earning €1k a week, this is a significant amount of money.

http://www.daft.ie/searchcommercial.daft?id=40595

Its a full serivics office. Shop around.

By charging high prices. If the purpose of the exercise is to reduce the levels of earings of lawyers, then direct access achieves that. If the purpose is to reduce the prices to consumers, then I'm not sure that increasing the costs of doing business is the correct way to go about it.

Then why are lawyers consistently the ones who charge the highest hourly rates?

Kosseegan

Victor wrote: »

Are you being blind to the solution?

There are too many barristers - let us say they work on average 20 hours and earn 1,000 euros per week.

So, one alternative would be to allow direct access, cutting out the solicitor middle-man, the barrister works 40 hours per week and earns 2,000 euros per week.

On average 20 hours a week? The case is that the waterfall effect applies. The busy barristers work up to 100 hours a week. When they are too busy work goes elsewhere down the chain to the next level. At the bottom of the waterfall, some are luck to average 5 hours of paying work a week. These are the ones who would be least able to replace a solicitor by reason of training, experience and resources.
Just because there are two lawyers involved does not mean that there is double work, just a division of labour. There are some situations indeed where an attending solicitor should not be necessary.
Solicitors themselves often have difficulty finding a barrister for certain kinds of work, if it is an area that the solicitor does not deal in frequently.
It would be even more difficult for a lay person in court for the first time.
Transferring under capacity from one branch of the profession to the other will not bring down costs overall.