WHY I DON’T GIVE FREE CONSULTATIONS AT MY LAW FIRM

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?

How I Would Redo Legal Education

I started practicing law the day I was sworn in, but I was ill-equipped to do so as I did not know the basics of running a law firm and practical civil procedure. I had a lot of theory in my head but how it played out in practice, I had no clue. Yes, I did seek employment with a law firm, but after going on an interview, I decided that was not for me. The place at which I interviewed, an insurance defense law firm in Los Angeles, I was told that I would have to dictate letters and reports and that I would not be furnished a computer, and in fact, I could not even bring one of my own. This place was really living in the dark ages and was not for me. I have little patience (in fact, no patience at all) with people who insist on living with yesterday's technology.

So what would I do if I had to design the curriculum of a law school?

It would start with a summer session, in which the student would be introduced to the legal world. It would cover how the law library works, how to use online research like Lexis and Westlaw and how the Internet is generally useful in practicing law. It would cover how to study law, that is, how to brief cases, how to take notes in class, how to make a course outline, how to study for and write exams, how to participate in class. It would cover the organization of the Court system, and give an overview of civil and criminal trials and appellate jurisdiction.

The first semester would cover jurisprudence (that is, how judges decide cases), history of the legal system, constitutional law, criminal procedure, and legal ethics.

The second semester would cover torts and contracts and the remedies associated therewith - nothing more - as it is essential that every student get these subjects down cold.

The summer between the first and second years would cover real property and the remedies associated therewith.

The third semester would cover civil procedure, criminal law, and business organizations (proprietorships, partnerships, limited liability companies, corporations, agency), and evidence

The fourth semester would consist of two courses: family law, community property, adoptions and guardianships; and another wills, trust, estate planning, conservatorships, and probate.

The summer between the second and third years would consist of income tax, bankruptcy, intellectual property, and employment law.

The Fifth Semester would be trial practice, in which the students would try a criminal case and a civil case to conclusion with actors hired to take the parts of parties and witnesses and the faculty acting as judges. This would include pleadings, discovery, motions, settlement negotiations, and an actual trial.

The Sixth and final semester would be Appellate Practice, covering writs, appeals, and oral argument before an appellate tribunal with local lawyers acting as justices.

After that, the law school would conduct a mandatory bar review course, and a JD degree would not be granted unless and until the student passes the bar examination. Those who do not pass would receive a Certificate of Legal Studies.

Above all, I would ditch the socratic method of teaching and use the same teaching techniques good teachers use at the graduate level in colleges and universities. All examinations would be of the essay variety and would be open resource. The students would be graded on their ability to think and analyze, not spit back information. Grading would be qualitative, based on the judgment of the faculty using objective standards, and would require a detailed written evaluation explaining the grade. There would be no curve grading as this results in cut-throat competition between students, something I think hinders rather than encourages learning. Simply put, students who do good work deserve good grades, and if all the students in a class deserve an A according to objective criteria, they should get one--and the same is true if they all do failing work - they should all get failing grades.

All of the above sounds quite radical, but I doubt if the ABA or the State Bar would approve it. Lawyers tend to be too conservative about everything.

Welcome!

I will be writing on what I hope will be a regular basis updating you all on the trends in the law that affect my law firm. Our largest single practice area is Workers Compensation, followed by employment law, real estate, probate, and estate planning, as well as selected personal injury cases. Our service area is the Palm Springs area and the Morongo Valley, including Cathedral City, Yucca Valley, Rancho Mirage, La Quinta, Indio, Joshua Tree, Palm Desert, Twenty-Nine Palms, Thousand Palms, Desert Hot Springs, Sky Valley, Coachella, Thermal, Mecca, Blythe, Imperial, Salton City, Calipatria, Ironwood, Banning, Cabazon, Whitewater, Beaumont, Hemet, Perris, Temecula, and Indian Wells.