Except for a few superstars and
the very few lawyers who work at large law firms, most lawyers don’t earn huge
incomes and live well, including me. I drive a six year old, high mileage car
and live in a 1362 square foot condominium in a middle class neighborhood. If I
wanted to be rich, I would not be a lawyer. I do what I do because I am
committed to alleviating human suffering and improving the lives of others.
My law firm often receives phone
calls from someone desperately seeking legal advice. The scenario is usually heart-wrenching: home
foreclosure; eviction tomorrow; second husband snookered mother into leaving her
estate to her instead of first-marriage children; car repossessed even though
payments current; or loss of life savings to fraud. Common to all is not only adversity, but a
desire for me provide immediate information to extricate them from their
situation. I tell them, yes, you need a
lawyer, but when told the fee for consultation, only half book an appointment,
come to the office, pay, and see me. The others? Some simply don’t have the
money, but the ignorant others ones
express hostility by stating lawyers have a duty to the public to provide free advice.
Our office does provide
free consultations for Workers Compensation. That’s because the law requires a
Workers Compensation Judge approve any fee paid to a lawyer in such cases.
Most of those clients have already made up their mind they need a lawyer and are
just there to do the paperwork to get them into the system. I tell the few that
haven’t decided they need a lawyer to come back when they do.
Why do I take such a hard line on
this issue? Because my services have value, just like those of other
professionals like physicians and accountants who undertook a specialized
course of study with a considerable investment of time and money. You pay to
see your doctor. Why should lawyers be any different? What the public doesn’t
realize is that like medicine, practicing law is a very high overhead
business driven by public expectations of the legal profession.
My biggest expense is payroll. Without
quality people, a law firm cannot give the competent and reliable services a
law firm’s clients expect. Law firm employees
must be presentable and communicate well, orally and in writing, sometimes in a
foreign language. Top-notch computer skills are a necessity; yesterday’s typewriter,
copier or fax machine skills are useless. Given that lawyers deal with
fundamental rights and often finances of their clients, the work ethic,
punctuality, and attendance of law firm employees must, of necessity exceed
that found in factories, hotels, stores, restaurants and health clubs. Most
important, law firm employees must be able to handle extreme stress levels. Law
is stressful. It deals with actual and potential conflicts between human
beings, usually over money. Many people can’t handle that. Hence, law firm
employees are not low-skill, minimum-wage types. They demand, and get, above-average
compensation (compared to other industries), fully paid health insurance and
other benefits, and continuing education. Additionally, the public demands I
rent professional space in a decent building. Clients don’t want lawyers in an
industrial area where rents are cheap.
Another major expense is malpractice insurance, at $8,000 to $12,000 per lawyer per year. Clients, and sometimes opposing parties, sue lawyers when they’re angry. I’ve been sued several times since I began practicing law in 1995, twice by an opposing party upset at how aggressively I defended my indigent client in a case without legal merit from the get-go. All the suits against me have been subjectively motivated by either a dislike of my personality, or clients who despite my best efforts, did not obtain the result they sought. But all the lawsuits have been frivolous. Nearly all were brought by disgruntled claimants representing themselves who dismissed their case once they figured it was meritless, or lost at the early stages. (One terminated in a very small nuisance value settlement). All these suits, however, cost my insurance company substantial dollars to defend. Unfortunately, insurors don’t look at the merits of the claim, only what it costs. Thus, I now pay very high premiums. One of the ways the price of legal services could become more affordable is to limit lawsuits against lawyers to claims where lawyers intentionally harmed clients or were grossly negligent and not allow claims at all by opposing parties in litigation against the lawyer for the other side. While the underwriting practices for malpractice insurance should be regulated to compel carriers to spread risks more widely, or laws changed to limit lawsuits against lawyers, I have to deal with the world as it is, not how I want it to be, and thus, the cost of insurance is reflected in what I charge for services.
Finally, we live in the digital
age. Law is computer intensive. To serve our clients responsibly, we are
paperless and back up our data off site, so if we burn down, we’re not out of
business. By maintaining a database for case management, calendaring, document production,
billing, accounting, and payroll, we’re able to do provide our clients with
quicker and more cost effective service than old-fashioned, labor-intensive firms
prone to human error arising from carelessness, laziness, or memory lapses. Computers,
networks, and software require substantial capital investment and ongoing
maintenance. Moreover, all legal research is now on the Internet. Since courts
and legislatures change the law daily, static law books no longer provide the
contemporaneous information a lawyer needs to write briefs, frame arguments and
advise clients. A major expense for us is interacting with the non-electronic
portions of the outside world, such as when we take over cases from paper based
law firms and have to scan reams of documents to begin handling the case, or
filing documents with Courts not yet equipped for electronic filing. Hence, another
way to bring down the cost of law practice would be to mandate that all
lawyers keep electronic records (paper optional internally) and make electronic
court filings universal.
The point is, I don’t give legal advice or services away because I can’t afford to do so and stay in business. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, the stock and trade of a lawyer is time and advice. Gas stations don't give away gas; grocery stores don’t give away milk – why should lawyers give away what they have to sell? Private law practice is still a business, with bills to be paid, just like a gas station, grocery store, or medical clinic. If you go to the doctor for medical advice, the doctor gets paid, one way or another. Why shouldn’t a lawyer?
