Advice on solicitor fee
Austin
legal action against a third party.
Upon arrival at the solicitors office he asked me if I minded if a collegue
'sat in' on the meeting........I agreed. Upon listening to their advice I
decided not to persue any action as it transpired that I could not afford it
when weighing up the pros and cons. I was duely sent a bill for Ł175 for a
discussion that lasted approximately 30 minutes.
Ł75 was for the solicitor with whome I made my appointemnt with and a
further Ł100 for the solicitor who 'sat in'.
It turns out that the 'solicitor' who I made my appointment with over the
telephone was infact a 'trainee' (I saw his picture in a local newspaper a
few days later stating his designation) and the solicitor who 'sat in' was a
partner. I was not informed at any satge I was meeting with a trainee.
At no time was I informed of any pricing and was not in any way informed
that I would be incurring additional expense by agreeing to let somebody
'sit in' on the meeting. During the meeting I was told I would be invoiced
for the consultation.
This seems unfair and excessive to me. What would a fair charge be in these
circumstances. I am of the opinion that I should only pay for the person
with whom I had the appointment with, and that, as I had discussed my
'problem' with him over the telephone a suitably informed solicitor should
have been appointed to take the meeting with me as opposed to an additional
one......I also feel that I should not have to pay for the training of a
trainee solicitor (although maybe this is normal practice, I don't know???)
I would appreciate any opinions.
Many thanks.
Dave Baker
>From: "Austin" noma...@nospam.com
>Date: 23/04/03 23:01 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <105113521...@ersa.uk.clara.net>
>
>I recently made an appointment with a solicitor to discuss the posibility of
>legal action against a third party.
>Upon arrival at the solicitors office he asked me if I minded if a collegue
>'sat in' on the meeting........I agreed. Upon listening to their advice I
>decided not to persue any action as it transpired that I could not afford it
>discussion that lasted approximately 30 minutes.
>
>further £100 for the solicitor who 'sat in'.
>
>It turns out that the 'solicitor' who I made my appointment with over the
>telephone was infact a 'trainee' (I saw his picture in a local newspaper a
>few days later stating his designation) and the solicitor who 'sat in' was a
>partner. I was not informed at any satge I was meeting with a trainee.
>
>At no time was I informed of any pricing and was not in any way informed
>that I would be incurring additional expense by agreeing to let somebody
>'sit in' on the meeting. During the meeting I was told I would be invoiced
>for the consultation.
>
>This seems unfair and excessive to me. What would a fair charge be in these
>circumstances. I am of the opinion that I should only pay for the person
>with whom I had the appointment with, and that, as I had discussed my
>'problem' with him over the telephone a suitably informed solicitor should
>have been appointed to take the meeting with me as opposed to an additional
>one......I also feel that I should not have to pay for the training of a
>trainee solicitor (although maybe this is normal practice, I don't know???)
>
>I would appreciate any opinions.
>
>Many thanks.
Most solicitors would give an initial 30 minute consultation free. If you
weren't informed of a rate before the meeting I don't see that they have a
legally binding contract to charge you by. Even if they did it strikes me that
only the senior person there was of any value to you. Any number of trainees
could have sat there without further contributing to the experience of the
senior person. I suggest you write saying you were under the clear impression
that the initial consultation was free, that in any event no scale of charges
was notified to you and agreed by you in advance and that if you had known that
a charge would be levied and especially that such charge would be increased by
their own request to have two persons present you would have gone elsewhere.
If the meeting was only 30 minutes then the rates are vastly excessive anyway.
It's that sort of practice that gets solicitors a bad name.
You are clearly somewhat naive though for not establishing exactly what you
were going to get charged in advance.
Dave Baker - Puma Race Engines (www.pumaracing.co.uk)
Richard Miller
<noma...@nospam.com> writes
>This seems unfair and excessive to me. What would a fair charge be in
>these circumstances. I am of the opinion that I should only pay for the
>person with whom I had the appointment with, and that, as I had
>discussed my 'problem' with him over the telephone a suitably informed
>solicitor should have been appointed to take the meeting with me as
>opposed to an additional one......I also feel that I should not have to
>pay for the training of a trainee solicitor (although maybe this is
>normal practice, I don't know???)
"What would be fair" is always a matter of opinion. It is a normal part
of the training of a trainee solicitor to conduct an interview under the
supervision of a qualified solicitor. But you are absolutely right to
say you should not have to pay for this.
It is difficult to judge what sort of advice your case needed. If a
trainee could have given the advice adequately, the correct fee would be
different from if it was a matter that required a qualified solicitor at
least to oversee it.
I would have thought in the circumstances that a charge based on a
single adviser, averaging out the charging rates of the two, would be
appropriate. You could have seen the solicitor on their own, and not
incurred the cost of the trainee; or you could have seen a more
experienced trainee or less experienced solicitor on their own.
Your rights to challenge the bill should be set out on the back. Please
note that the time limits are strict. You should write to the solicitor
you saw challenging the bill and explaining why. You should then take it
to the senior partner if you do not get a satisfactory response.
Come back to us again if you need further help after that. :-)
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
<pumar...@aol.comma> writes
>
>Most solicitors would give an initial 30 minute consultation free. If you
>weren't informed of a rate before the meeting I don't see that they have a
>legally binding contract to charge you by.
They do because they told him at the start of the interview that he
would be charged. I am not sure that I would go as far as to say that
"most" would give a free initial interview, but many would.
> Even if they did it strikes me that
>only the senior person there was of any value to you. Any number of trainees
>could have sat there without further contributing to the experience of the
>senior person.
Agreed.
> I suggest you write saying you were under the clear impression
>that the initial consultation was free, that in any event no scale of charges
>was notified to you and agreed by you in advance and that if you had known that
>a charge would be levied and especially that such charge would be increased by
>their own request to have two persons present you would have gone elsewhere.
My view is that *a* charge is legitimate in this case, but I agree with
you about the charge for the second person.
>
>If the meeting was only 30 minutes then the rates are vastly excessive anyway.
>It's that sort of practice that gets solicitors a bad name.
£150 for a trainee and £200 for a senior solicitor? Yes, it is
definitely on the high side, unless we are talking specialist commercial
or city of London types.
--
Richard Miller
The Todal
"Dave Baker" <pumar...@aol.comma> wrote in message
news:20030423190720...@mb-m07.aol.com...
Many solicitors don't give an initial free consultation. But they do have an
obligation to make the charging arrangement clear, and can be criticised for
failing to do so.
In fact, there is authority (case law) for the proposition that if they make
an appointment for you to see an unqualified person and don't tell you that
he's unqualified, they are not entitled to charge you at all for his
services. The case is Pearless de Rougemont & Co v Pilbrow. Thus, you don't
have to pay at all for the services of the junior member of staff -
arguably.
As to the senior person, who was qualified, he was "sitting in" on the
meeting but unless it was made clear to the client prior to the consultation
that his services would be charged for, I don't see that they should be
charged for. Result: no payment is owed, and he can tell the solicitors to
get stuffed and at the same time he can threaten a complaint to the OSS if
they choose to be difficult about it.
>
> You are clearly somewhat naive though for not establishing exactly what
you
> were going to get charged in advance.
I suppose that is true, but nowadays a client is entitled to expect
information up front about what he is going to be charged. Gone are the days
where both solicitor and client thought it too sordid to discuss money until
many meetings had taken place, many letters written and suddenly the
solicitor presented a bill for three and a half grand.
Dave Baker
>From: Richard Miller ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk
>Date: 24/04/03 08:54 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <Ta2obsVr...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk>
>
>In message <20030423190720...@mb-m07.aol.com>, Dave Baker
><pumar...@aol.comma> writes
>>
>>Most solicitors would give an initial 30 minute consultation free. If you
>>weren't informed of a rate before the meeting I don't see that they have a
>>legally binding contract to charge you by.
>
>They do because they told him at the start of the interview that he
>would be charged. I am not sure that I would go as far as to say that
>"most" would give a free initial interview, but many would.
Agreed, I'll retract the "most".
The OP never said they told him "at the start of the interview" that he would
be charged. He said he was informed he would be invoiced for the consultation
"during it" which clearly could be any time between the start and the end. He
might wish to clarify that but given that they apparently didn't set out a
scale of charges "before" the interview I suggest that the interview, by
definition, started without any clear basis for contract having been
established. Given that, I fail to see how, under strict contract law, they can
then charge him for any of it. Even if he stayed after the point at which they
said he would be invoiced it seems the scale of charges wasn't agreed or he
wouldn't have been so surprised to get a bill for both people's time.
As they are trying to charge him for two people's time when at best only one of
those people was necessary I don't feel it unreasonable for him to claim he
thought it was a free consultation even if he really didn't. They are behaving
unethically and immorally and I suggest he fight fire with fire. It is critical
of course that his first correspondence sets out his stall with no room for
doubt. i.e. "I am astonished to get a bill having been told it was a free
initial consultation and have no intention of paying for even one person's time
nevermind two people's if part of the reason for that was your own in house
training."
I'll defer to more experienced counsel but I suggest if it got as far as a
small claims court a judge would tell them to take a hike if there was nothing
agreed in advance in writing.
Joan Mercer
"Austin" <noma...@nospam.com> wrote in
news:105113521...@ersa.uk.clara.net:
> I recently made an appointment with a solicitor to discuss the
> posibility of legal action against a third party.
> Upon arrival at the solicitors office he asked me if I minded if a
> collegue 'sat in' on the meeting........I agreed. Upon listening to
> their advice I decided not to persue any action as it transpired that
> I could not afford it when weighing up the pros and cons. I was duely
> sent a bill for Ł175 for a discussion that lasted approximately 30
> minutes.
Did you actually *agree* to pay them *anything* (e.g. a verbal contract)?
If not, I can't see why you would have to give them anything at all.
Otherwise, I could make an absolute *fortune* by letting in Jehovah's
Witnesses when they come round, and simply talking to them for half an
hour...
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
Richard Miller
<the_tod...@msn.com> writes
>
>In fact, there is authority (case law) for the proposition that if they make
>an appointment for you to see an unqualified person and don't tell you that
>he's unqualified, they are not entitled to charge you at all for his
>services. The case is Pearless de Rougemont & Co v Pilbrow. Thus, you don't
>have to pay at all for the services of the junior member of staff -
>arguably.
I'd forgotten the Pilbrow case. That may assist here.
--
Richard Miller
Johnjo
"Richard Miller" <ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Ta2obsVr...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
I quite agree. It sounds like sharp practice on the part of these
solicitors.
Austin
my concerns at the price charged.
Just to reiterate on an earlier point - At the end of the meeting I asked
how I should pay for the 'meeting' as I expected to pay there and then (I've
only ever used a solicitor to buy my house). I was informed at this point
that I would be invoiced. So in answer to an ealier quiery, payment was not
mentioned until I was geting up to leave and obviously I was not made aware
of the charges at this time either....if this makes a difference.
"Austin" <noma...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:105113521...@ersa.uk.clara.net...
> I recently made an appointment with a solicitor to discuss the posibility
of
> legal action against a third party.
> Upon arrival at the solicitors office he asked me if I minded if a
collegue
> 'sat in' on the meeting........I agreed. Upon listening to their advice I
> decided not to persue any action as it transpired that I could not afford
it
> when weighing up the pros and cons. I was duely sent a bill for £175 for a
> discussion that lasted approximately 30 minutes.
>
> £75 was for the solicitor with whome I made my appointemnt with and a
> further £100 for the solicitor who 'sat in'.
Dave Baker
>Date: 24/04/03 23:48 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <105122433...@damia.uk.clara.net>
>
>Thanks for all your replies. I will get a suitable letter drafted to convey
>my concerns at the price charged.
>
>Just to reiterate on an earlier point - At the end of the meeting I asked
>how I should pay for the 'meeting' as I expected to pay there and then (I've
>only ever used a solicitor to buy my house). I was informed at this point
>that I would be invoiced. So in answer to an ealier quiery, payment was not
>mentioned until I was geting up to leave and obviously I was not made aware
>of the charges at this time either....if this makes a difference.
Seeing as you raised the issue of a fee rather than them I'm wondering if they
did originally intend it to be a free consultation and then thought to hell
with it as you'd opened the door. The relevant points have already been covered
anyway.
Richard Miller
Mercer <joanm...@softhome.net> writes
>*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>
>"Austin" <noma...@nospam.com> wrote in
>news:105113521...@ersa.uk.clara.net:
>
>> I recently made an appointment with a solicitor to discuss the
>> posibility of legal action against a third party.
>> Upon arrival at the solicitors office he asked me if I minded if a
>> collegue 'sat in' on the meeting........I agreed. Upon listening to
>> their advice I decided not to persue any action as it transpired that
>> I could not afford it when weighing up the pros and cons. I was duely
>> minutes.
>
>Did you actually *agree* to pay them *anything* (e.g. a verbal contract)?
>
>If not, I can't see why you would have to give them anything at all.
>
>Otherwise, I could make an absolute *fortune* by letting in Jehovah's
>Witnesses when they come round, and simply talking to them for half an
>hour...
You mean when you engage a professional person and seek advice from
them, you don't expect to pay for it?
You are not living in the real world.
--
Richard Miller
DB.
<earlier exchanges snipped>
You mean when you engage a professional person and seek advice from
> them, you don't expect to pay for it?
>
> You are not living in the real world.
> --
> Richard Miller
But at their first meeting the "professional person" hasn't yet been
engaged.
What is it that makes those who describe themselves as "professional
persons" so different from others? A first meeting at which someone
seeks "advice" is seen by the solicitor simply as an opportunity to sell
his (very expensive) services. If he recognises that there's no money to
be made out of the guy his only advice will be "Drop the matter", and
he'll very quickly have him back through the door.
Compare with those (non-professionals) like landscape gardeners and
double-glazing suppliers, who will at no charge gladly visit you at home
to give you "advice" (ie. take up an offered opportunity to sell their
services).
DB.
Richard Miller
<dbirc...@btinternet.com> writes
There is a major difference. The landscape gardener or double glazing
supplier will come round to advise what is possible and what it will
cost you. If you agree to it, they will then supply you with their goods
and services. In no case will the initial meeting and discussion provide
the client with everything they want out of the transaction.
In the case of the solicitor, the service for sale is being provided at
the first interview. The first interview may provide all of the advice
that is needed. It may provide some initial advice, with a
recommendation of other work that can be done. It may provide the client
with options for the future.
The client is welcome to take up those *further* services if he wants.
If he doesn't, there is no reason why he should not pay for the
professional services he has received.
As a matter of marketing, some solicitors will provide an initial
interview free. But they are not obliged to, just as landscape gardeners
and double glazing fitters are not obliged to provide their advisory
services free if they don't want to.
--
Richard Miller
Joan Mercer
Richard Miller <ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in
news:IwEOxkDv...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk:
[snip]
> In the case of the solicitor, the service for sale is being provided at
> the first interview. The first interview may provide all of the advice
> that is needed. It may provide some initial advice, with a
> recommendation of other work that can be done. It may provide the client
> with options for the future.
>
> The client is welcome to take up those *further* services if he wants.
> If he doesn't, there is no reason why he should not pay for the
> professional services he has received.
*Provided* he *agreed* to pay for them.
Which, in the case of the original poster, does *not* appear to have been
the case.
Richard Miller
Mercer <joanm...@softhome.net> writes
>*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>
>Richard Miller <ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>news:IwEOxkDv...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk:
>
>[snip]
>> In the case of the solicitor, the service for sale is being provided at
>> the first interview. The first interview may provide all of the advice
>> that is needed. It may provide some initial advice, with a
>> recommendation of other work that can be done. It may provide the client
>> with options for the future.
>>
>> The client is welcome to take up those *further* services if he wants.
>> If he doesn't, there is no reason why he should not pay for the
>> professional services he has received.
>
>*Provided* he *agreed* to pay for them.
>
>Which, in the case of the original poster, does *not* appear to have been
>the case.
When you engage a professional person, unless the contrary is expressly
agreed, you are implicitly accepting a liability to pay them a
reasonable fee for their services. The law recognises such a liability
in the absence of expressly agreed charging rates, in the form of the
doctrine of quantum meruit. That has been amended in the case of
solicitors by the Pilbrow case, but the fact remains that when you
employ someone, you accept a liability to pay them.
--
Richard Miller
Joan Mercer
Richard Miller <ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in
news:2XrxIzoS...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk:
> When you engage a professional person, unless the contrary is
> expressly agreed, you are implicitly accepting a liability to pay them
> a reasonable fee for their services. The law recognises such a
> liability in the absence of expressly agreed charging rates, in the
> form of the doctrine of quantum meruit. That has been amended in the
> case of solicitors by the Pilbrow case, but the fact remains that when
> you employ someone, you accept a liability to pay them.
Interesting - I wasn't aware of the idea of quantum meruit! (No prizes for
guessing IANAL :)
Thanks for the pointer - I think this would be worth me looking into a
little more!