Speculative Translation?

[Warren Smith]

I am still going the rounds with a law firm that owes me about $5000 from
last April.

As I was putting the finishing touches on a dunning letter to that firm,
another law firm (which has offered me a large job at 20 cpw) sent me an
email that my requested "guaranteed net 45 payment" would be a deal breaker,
as they collect invoices to send to their client on a monthly basis, and
then receive payment thereafter, before finally paying their suppliers.

Is translating for a large law firm always a speculative venture? If it is,
how much of an additional speculative premium should I charge them? What if
their client does not pay? What can be done, up front, to expedite (or even
ensure) payment?

I would be grateful for any discussion of your experiences in this area.

Thanks.

Warren Smith

PS: Here is the letter I wrote to the California law firm that has not paid
its April invoice. It is probably unwise for me to argue law with a law
firm, but I could not resist. Comments would be appreciated.

----------------

Thank you, Ms. XXX, for your response.



I will be patient a while longer (although I am sad that my family cannot
use some of this money during the Christmas season).



I am glad that you "want to have an answer for" me, but I don't see much of
a question here... I did the work for you in good faith, anticipating
payment in a normal and reasonable manner, and have a right to prompt
payment for services performed.



While it could be argued that I should have set payment terms in advance of
accepting this assignment, such is not the common practice in my industry,
and I could not have imagined that work done in March and April would not be
paid by December. Never in my 25 years as a patent translator have I had a
client so delinquent in paying. There is, of course, the question of what
constitutes a "normal" payment lead time. Typically there is an unspoken
agreement in my industry that payment is to be made within 45 days -- which
expectation was explicitly stated on my invoice (and NOT disputed). While of
course California Government Code 927(a) does not apply to this case, the
statement therein that "It is the intent of the Legislature that state
agencies pay properly submitted, undisputed invoices within 45 days of
receipt..." implies that a 45-day payment lead time is indeed reasonable and
expected in the State of California. Because I am not a lawyer, I do not
understand the common law implications of general payment practices in your
state established by non-applicable statute, but I would have to think that
my expectation of 45 days must be considered reasonable and appropriate.



There is also the issue of the invoice not being disputed. While the CFR is
also not directly applicable to this case, it is interesting to note the
discussion in CFR� 1315.4(c)(2) that says that an invoice has to be returned
within 7 days if it is "improper." The fact is that it is nearly 8 months
later and the invoice -- which clearly gives a net 45 payment condition --
has not been returned. Again, I do not understand the common law
implications of a non-applicable federal code, but it is reasonable that to
assume that the payment terms in a non-disputed invoice (for which a
confirmation receipt was received) can be considered as binding.



UCC 2-310, which DOES apply (if my understanding is correct), states that
�unless otherwise agreed: (A) Payment is due at the time and place at which
the buyer is to receive the goods even though the place of shipment is the
place of delivery.� The �otherwise agreed" would have to be considered the
net-45 stated in the invoice. That is, according to the Uniform Commercial
Code, if the agreement does not default to "payment on delivery" then it
must be because of the "net-45" stated in the invoice.



The upshot is that, regardless of the payment practices that are
idiosyncratic to your firm, the 45-day payment period must be considered to
be binding, and I think it would be appropriate for me to receive a check by
FedEx, or the like, by Friday.



Warren

[Karen Sandness]

Why get so complicated?

A U.S.-based agency once owned me a little more than $5,000 and kept
promising to pay "next week for sure." After about five weeks of next
weeks (and hearing from other translators that this agency routinely
delayed payments), I told them that if the money wasn't in my account
by Monday, I'd sic a collection agency on them, because by this point,
something was better than nothing.

Lo and behold, they somehow managed to scrape together the money and
wire it to my account as directed.

Hard-nosedly yours,
Karen Sandness

> --
> To post: mailto:hon...@googlegroups.com
> List home: http://groups.google.com/group/honyaku
> FAQ: http://groups.google.com/group/honyaku/web
> Posters assume all responsibility for their posts; list owners do not
> review messages and accept no responsibility for the content of posts.

[Matthew Schlecht]

On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Warren Smith <warren...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> What can be done, up front, to expedite (or even ensure) payment?

     I've not tried this, but an idea I've seen is to add 15-20% to the rate for such poorly behaved clients, say with your 45 days net payment window (I still push for 30 days), and then offer a 15-20% discount for "early" payment whereby your check is received within 40 days (or 25 days). (They might still revert to sending the check within that period, but you're still ahead or at least on time).
     15-20% is what reasonable credit card companies used to charge on an API basis, so this way, you don't have past-due creditors, you have micro-loan recipients who hopefully pay off within one year.  With really bad payers, you might need to work in language about how an additional 15-20% will be applied for payments more than 365 days late.
     I've yet to see the law firm that is so strapped for cash that they really couldn't pay a translator's fee within the terms stated on the invoice.  They put off payments because they presume they can get away with it.  Try that tactic with your mortgage sometime!

Matthew Schlecht

[Andy]

Warren

We recently did translation (into Chinese) for a law firm.� I was a little surprised to get the payment directly from their client and not the law firm.� I am guessing that in our case our invoice was passed directly along in order to be transparent and show there was no mark-up on the contracted translation service.

The law firm you are dealing seems to want to pay you only after their client pays them.

I guess my question to the law firm you have is: who is paying the bill?� It would seem that YOUR client is the law firm and THEY are responsible for paying you.� This is just like agencies that will only pay their translators AFTER they receive payment from their client.� I bet they pay their phone bill or their rent in a more timely fashion.

In our case mentioned above, we got paid in about 40 days.� The bill was $3000.00 +/-.

Andy

---

I am still going the rounds with a law firm that owes me about $5000 from
last April.

As I was putting the finishing touches on a dunning letter to that firm,
another law firm (which has offered me a large job at 20 cpw) sent me an
email that my requested "guaranteed net 45 payment" would be a deal breaker,
as they collect invoices to send to their client on a monthly basis, and
then receive payment thereafter, before finally paying their suppliers.

Is translating for a large law firm always a speculative venture? If it is,
how much of an additional speculative premium should I charge them? What if
their client does not pay? What can be done, up front, to expedite (or even
ensure) payment?

I would be grateful for any discussion of your experiences in this area.

  

--
_______________________________________________________________
Andrew Taylor
Japan Pacific Publications, Inc.
PO Box 3092 -- 519 6th Ave. S., Suite 220 -- Seattle, WA 98104
Tel: 206-622-7443 -- Fax: 206-621-1786

Japanese Translations and Typesetting � Japanese business cards
Publishers of the Soy Source -- Seattle's Japanese language newspaper

[timl...@aol.com]

Warren,

 

I don't know how you cost your time and nervous energy, but might it not be cheaper and more effective to pay a lawyer to send them a formal letter requiring payment without further delay, ideally setting a date?

 

Regards

Tim

[Fred Uleman]

Re:

> What if their client does not pay?

How many times do we have to go over this?
What happens between them and their client should be irrelevant.
Who is your contract with?
If they want to make your payment contingent upon the client's paying them, then you should be contracting with their client.

Offer them a choice:
(1) I contract with you and you pay me no matter what.
(2) I contract with your client and you get out of the way.

-- -- -- -- -- --
Fred Uleman, translator emeritus

[Ray Roman]

Even if one explained it once per day, there would still be folks who wander in between announcements. Remember that a quick eye-roll and Delete can do wonders. . .

On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Fred Uleman <ful...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

How many times do we have to go over this?

 

--
Ray Roman J.D.
Japanese to English legal translation
japane...@gmail.com

[Richard Thieme]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray Roman" <japane...@gmail.com>
To: <hon...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 9:26 AM
Subject: Re: Speculative Translation?

> Even if one explained it once per day, there would still be folks who
> wander
> in between announcements. Remember that a quick eye-roll and Delete can do
> wonders. . .
>
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Fred Uleman <ful...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> How many times do we have to go over this?
>>
>
>

I would say it is more like some clients don't learn. And there are always
more clients.

I have had some very prominent law firms try this.

I tried the Uleman formula but it was no dice.

You have to understand that there are indeed some firms who think they are
above the law, and who operate quite successfully that way.

The best option is not to work with these types.

If you are kind to the cruel you will be cruel to the kind.

But it takes discipline to adopt that approach. So yes this topic should and
must be brought up from time to time, as it never gets old.

Regards,

Richard Thieme