Highest hourly rates in Ireland

Andrea B.

Friend told me that he was quoted e350ph (incl VAT) by a large legal firm in Ireland for duties relating to employment law. Not saying it was a ripoff, as it was forewarned, but I would be interested to know if any other posters heard similar?

SATSUMA

That's right for a large firm, would be more for a partner.

MarkAnthony

Inc Vat that seems reasonable for a top firm solicitor. Does the work require someone that specialised or is the person hiring Michelangelo for painting the downstairs toilet?

234

Andrea B. wrote: »

Friend told me that he was quoted e350ph (incl VAT) by a large legal firm in Ireland for duties relating to employment law. Not saying it was a ripoff, as it was forewarned, but I would be interested to know if any other posters heard similar?

Absolutely standard for a large firm. Probably not even a particularly experienced fee earner at that. For comparison, the top partners in the big five can bill €2k per hour for some kinds of work.

NUTLEY BOY

234 wrote: »

Absolutely standard for a large firm. Probably not even a particularly experienced fee earner at that. For comparison, the top partners in the big five can bill €2k per hour for some kinds of work.

If this type of partner was advising a client in litigation would their full rate be taxed in full on a party and party basis ?

NoQuarter

Andrea B. wrote: »

Friend told me that he was quoted e350ph (incl VAT) by a large legal firm in Ireland for duties relating to employment law. Not saying it was a ripoff, as it was forewarned, but I would be interested to know if any other posters heard similar?

Around €530 p.h in the Top 5 for a partner, ex. VAT.

Marcusm

Andrea B. wrote: »

Friend told me that he was quoted e350ph (incl VAT) by a large legal firm in Ireland for duties relating to employment law. Not saying it was a ripoff, as it was forewarned, but I would be interested to know if any other posters heard similar?

I've seen a 2 man firm in a market town in Co Cork seek to charge €400 per hour for commercial litigation work for which they were unqualified.

Andrea B.

thanks folks.
interesting.

Does the work require someone that specialised or is the person hiring Michelangelo for painting the downstairs toilet?

Fair point, but the employer being questioned/challenged was using the services of Caravaggio, so I guess he felt he needed to present comparable.

Pro Hoc Vice

Andrea B. wrote: »

Friend told me that he was quoted e350ph (incl VAT) by a large legal firm in Ireland for duties relating to employment law. Not saying it was a ripoff, as it was forewarned, but I would be interested to know if any other posters heard similar?

Could be cheap could be way over the top.

Pro Hoc Vice

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

If this type of partner was advising a client in litigation would their full rate be taxed in full on a party and party basis ?

Party and party stay the same no matter who acts, but solicitor client is a different matter.

The_Minister

Andrea B. wrote: »

Fair point, but the employer being questioned/challenged was using the services of Caravaggio, so I guess he felt he needed to present comparable.

If the Counsel is good then a finger-painter can beat Caravaggio.

nuac

Marcusm wrote: »

I've seen a 2 man firm in a market town in Co Cork seek to charge €400 per hour for commercial litigation work for which they were unqualified.

The fact that the firm is small, or in the sticks does not mean that they would be unqualified for commercial litigation.

Often in large firms the senior litigation partner meets the client for the initial discussion.

Then as the matter progresses the client may find that a junior associate is dealing with it.

Often better to have one solicitor seeing the matter thru.

hullaballoo

I'm not sure I understand the logic of using a big firm in litigation at any level, if I'm honest.

Those firms are so big because they are involved in big-money dealings, such as mergers and acquisitions, funds management and taxation etc. where they command massive fees, far in excess of anything they would earn from litigation. They are not litigation specialists because, frankly, litigation is not what pays them. Even where they do provide litigation services, it is generally only at the "higher" end where the fees are a bit better - mostly in the Commercial Court.

Even looking at certain firms' websites, you can see that litigation is not mentioned outside of commercial and high-end litigation. You certainly don't see PI or employment law matters at any of the big 5. All of them have pages dealing with "Litigation and Dispute Resolution" (or similar) but looking at them, you'll see the kind of stuff they're targeting:

MOP: http://www.matheson.com/legal-services/commercial-litigation-and-dispute-resolution
AC: http://www.arthurcox.com/practice_area/litigation-and-dispute-resolution/
McCann Fitz: http://www.mccannfitzgerald.ie/expertise/dispute-resolution---litigation.aspx
William Fry: http://www.williamfry.ie/practice-area/litigation_dispute_resolution.aspx
A&L Goodbody: http://www.algoodbody.com/expertise/Litigation_Dispute_Resolution

There's an overwhelming thematic overlap in the above links.

Really, for anything less than tens of millions of euro, you need to be looking at "small" firms. There are many small firms (including one-man shows) that focus on litigation and are extremely good at it and good value for money. They will also be far better positioned to get the right Counsel on board. (I won't put it any further than that. )

NoQuarter

hullaballoo wrote: »

.......

I agree with your sentiment but I think you might be going over the top a bit. Those firms, or certain of them, do engage in litigation worth a lot less than tens of millions. They have intellectual property departments, some have debt collection departments that deal in the Master's Court for a few thousand euros etc. They probably all have employment departments.

I also don't understand how they would be far better positioned to get the right counsel on board as any barrister would happily accept a brief from any of those firms in the hope that more may follow. Although, I of course accept that you have almost just as much of a chance at getting whatever counsel you like from even a 1 man show solicitor.

hullaballoo

NoQuarter wrote: »

I agree with your sentiment but I think you might be going over the top a bit. Those firms, or certain of them, do engage in litigation worth a lot less than tens of millions. They have intellectual property departments, some have debt collection departments that deal in the Master's Court for a few thousand euros etc. They probably all have employment departments.

I suppose my point, if it is overstated, is that smaller firms are often a far better option for individuals looking to litigate. Where you have IP/debt collection cases brought by those firms, they are invariably on behalf of a big client who will also be giving them the type of work that really pays.

I'm happy enough to stand over what I've said, though. I don't think it makes commercial sense for the big firms to involve themselves in litigation when they attract the big money work. As such, I don't think that's where they specialise and if you're looking for a solicitor who's just going to litigate on your behalf, I would be looking beyond the big law firms.

I also don't understand how they would be far better positioned to get the right counsel on board as any barrister would happily accept a brief from any of those firms in the hope that more may follow. Although, I of course accept that you have almost just as much of a chance at getting whatever counsel you like from even a 1 man show solicitor.

I presume you mean that you don't understand why I'm saying a smaller firm will be better positioned to get the right counsel. I say this for two primary reasons.

Firstly, the larger firms tend to have a panel of barristers they go to and junior litigation associates do not have the authority to brief outside of that panel of go-to barristers. It's only when you gain seniority within a firm that the authority to brief comes and there are inherent difficulties with that system. A senior solicitor in a big firm may not know who the best counsel is in a given situation.

Secondly, where a matter comes to a big firm that is outside their core exptertise, even within their litigation dept., there is a chance that they will just not be aware who the most appropriate counsel might be and they may revert to the most appropriate counsel on their panel. A smaller solicitor specialising in litigation is more likely to be aware who does what in terms of different aspects of litigation, mostly by virtue of attending various court lists frequently.

In case I'm taken up incorrectly, I'm not seeking to make out that the big firms are poor litigators, just that their commercial interests do not lie in tandem with fighting small-time litigation for private individuals who want to go to the EAT etc.

NoQuarter

Thanks, I do see your point and would agree with the majority of that.

Marcusm

nuac wrote: »

The fact that the firm is small, or in the sticks does not mean that they would be unqualified for commercial litigation.

Often in large firms the senior litigation partner meets the client for the initial discussion.

Then as the matter progresses the client may find that a junior associate is dealing with it.

Often better to have one solicitor seeing the matter thru.

That they are unqualified to carry on commercial litigation is a commentary on the solicitors having discussed it with them. I was asked to speak with them by a family member who had engaged them. They had been involved for 7 months at that stage and had not achieved any progress on a matter where another firm obtained progress within a week. Their expectation seemed to involve promising to instruct senior counsel and have regular meetings without any progress or sensible updates while allowing the situation to deteriorate. A single conversation with them and a few pointed questions had then effectively admitting their inability to act.