The winter was harsh around here, and the spring brings the need to repair the ravages of the season. With a few slates off the roof, I called a roofer. Despite my efforts to be fairly handy for a lawyer, I prefer to keep my feet on the ground, and would rather pay another person to work on high. It took a few calls before finding anyone interested in doing a small job, but one fellow was happy and interested.
He came by the give me an estimate. The time spent giving me the estimate would have been almost sufficient to do the repair, but instead he looked, we talked and then he got back to me with his price. I was happy, and told him to do the work. He was happy too, and would get back to me in a few days to let me know when the work would be done. An awful lot of time and energy was involved in the preparations to do a fairly small job. But this was how he chose to proceed.
I like the guy. Gave him the job, and am still waiting for it to be scheduled and completed. It would have been far better, as far as I’m concerned, had he just performed the work while he was there, but that wasn’t the way he sold jobs. I didn’t need the selling, just the work. He likely expected me to try to haggle with him on the estimate. I didn’t. His price seemed fair to me, and I would rather expect excellent service than quibble over money.
Brian Tannebaum asked the other day whether people who aren’t hungry go to restaurants. It was an analogy to a new trend he’s experiencing with people who come to see him about retaining him to represent them.
And rearing it’s ugly head recently (probably due to the economy):
“I’m not sure I even want to hire a lawyer for this. I think it may make me look (bad, guilty, like I’m trying to hide something.)”
Every lawyer who represents alleged criminals or anyone in trouble gets these questions. When I was starting out, I would entertain this notion to the point where it appeared I was almost begging the client to change his mind.
I suspect that the question isn’t about whether the person needs a lawyer, or is hungry to follow the analogy, but a come on to the lawyer to induce the client to retain him by offering a reduced fee. It’s just a way to haggle a bit. Brian doesn’t haggle. Nor do I. So why does the potential client?
A huge rift has developed in the legal profession between those desperately seeking business and those desperately seeking to provide clients with excellent representation. The former compete on price. The latter on quality. The price competition is far easier for the client to appreciate and understand. Quality can’t be seen or touched, and can’t be proven until after the fact, and then only by comparison. For those clients who go to law offices expecting a roofer, it’s an unfulfilling experience.
Tannebaum often writes about the ugly truths of quality legal representation. Few want to shoulder this burden, as it’s counterproductive to marketing. It makes lawyers seem arrogant and unfeeling, as if we are too good, too important to be bothered with potential clients. It’s not, but it feels that way when the culture of marketing revolves around selling legal services like other products and services.
Marketers teach lawyers who turn to them because they need business ways to “sell” the client. We offer free consultations, which clients interpret as a free hour of a lawyer’s time to provide free legal advice which they can then take away and use. I get many inquiries from people asking if I give free consultations. There’s only one reason for them to ask. I don’t. But they expect lawyers to do so, and will be happy to enjoy a free consultation when they need answers from a lawyer. This is because we teach them to expect free consultations.
Clients call or write for a free answer to a legal question. They’ve been taught to expect that too. Think Avvo Answers.
When a question or consultation won’t suffice, they want to negotiate, or pay the fee over time, as they would on replacement windows. Many lawyers will negotiate their fees, lest a potential client walk away. Others will take payments over time, praying that the second, then third payment will come.
The questions that Brian writes about are rarely a problem for me anymore. I vet potential clients before making an appointment with them. It’s quite common for callers to tell me that they have a problem and would like an appointment. I ask them what the problem is. Most are refused an appointment. There’s no reason to sit down with someone when there is no possibility of my taking their case, whether because the nature of the case isn’t suited to my practice or they aren’t able to pay the legal fee.
Callers are shocked that they can’t have an appointment; they have been taught to believe they are entitled to one.
This dichotomy between lawyers and roofers is a serious problem. We have only so many hours in the day, and when that time is used to meet with people who will never be clients, it is lost forever. But as long as lawyers prefer to sell themselves like roofers, as their marketing experts tell them to do, customers of legal services will expect us to behave like roofers.
Of the lawyers with whom I’ve spoken who put stock in marketing, they would much prefer to run their practice like Brian Tannebaum, but they don’t believe they can. They fear that if they don’t sell the potential client, offer the inducement, haggle, no one will retain them. More particularly, if they don’t do it, some other competing lawyer will, and snag up all the good, money making cases. And so they offer everything from free consultations to S&H Green Stamps (are they still around?).
Don’t blame the clients for expecting lawyers to give it up for free. Lawyers have created these expectations.
Update: Max Kennerly makes an important point, that this view is very different for the lawyer who is compensated via contingency fee. While they are part of the problem, in that clients are unlikely to distinguish between the plaintiffs’ personal injury lawyer and the criminal defense lawyer when it comes to the manner in which time is used/wasted, the PI lawyer lives on contingency fees, and essentially never charges for time. The fee consultation (which Max correctly notes is a misnomer, since there’s no “consulting” going on) is just the way in which they determine whether the case has merit and to pursue it; it’s not a time drain for them.
Unfortunately, personal injury lawyers do a lot of TV advertising, and tend to hype their “free consultation” as an inducement to call. This impacts all lawyers, but it’s hard to blame contingency lawyers for doing what’s in their best interest. They are in a different situation, and who can blame them for doing what works best for them.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
With respect to lawyers who offer free consultation (such as myself), I don’t know that seeking business and seeking to provide quality representation are mutually exclusive. I think most of us want to do both.
Nor do I believe that potential clients who take advantage of free consultations are necessarily free-loaders seeking free legal advice. Instead, I imagine that most are seeking to get the best legal representation they can, within their budget, on an issue that could affect them for the rest of their lives. What is wrong with checking around to make sure you get the right lawyer? And, by “right,” I mean not only the most qualified or the most respected, but also right for you? You can’t tell whether or not there is a fit by the lawyer’s resume. And, assuming you are working within a limited budget, you can’t get a sense of different lawyers if each one is charging you a consultation fee.
I have no problem with potential clients who shop around. In fact, unless they have already worked with the lawyer or have a recommendation from someone they absolutely trust, I think they would be foolish NOT to shop around.
You are engaging in the rationalization process that many lawyers starting up a new private practice these days go through, justifying your decisions based on what you believe is necessary to build a new practice. You’re wrong, but you won’t understand why until, and unless, your practice becomes more successful and self-sustaining. During the phase when you are desperate for business, you will do anything to get a client, and you will “believe” whatever you have to believe to justify your choices, no matter how bad they are.
But don’t confuse your “beliefs” with reality. You’re new to private practice, which is why you are spewing out the marketers’ sales pitch. Rather than argue like a salesman, maybe you should wonder whether you, the brand new private practitioner, may not be the one who knows best?
Why Contingent Fee Lawyers Don’t Charge Consultation Fees
Scott Greenfield isn’t happy with people wasting his time: Marketers teach lawyers who turn to them because they need business ways to "sell" the client. We offer free consultations, which clients interpret as a free hour of a lawyer’s time…
It’s a good thing I know and like you, Greenfield. You don’t think it’s a little insulting to tell someone they are so desperate for business that they will do anything to get a client? I don’t think that applies to me. And it doesn’t apply to any of the lawyers I know or hang around with, and that includes many lawyers in the exact same situation as I am. More experienced lawyers don’t have a monopoly on ethical behavior.
I think it’s presumptuous for the least experienced guy in the room to explain why those who have been doing this (private practice) for a combined 50 years are wrong, don’t know as much as him, and then goes on to explain his “beliefs”. When you made the decision to challenge this view, you invited a reply. Did you assume, after reading what I wrote, that I was going to change my mind based on your “beliefs”?
I like you too, but as a private criminal defense lawyer, you’re still very new. Yet you not only believe you have nothing to learn from old hands, but presume to school us on how to run a practice?
Uncle!
I take a different approach. I charge for the initial consultation, but if the client retains me, then I waive the fee. As far as contingency fees, block (or flat fees) and other alternative billing arrangements are concerned, I tend to pick cherries when client’s ask for alternate billing structures. However, a hybrid retainer arrangement (i.e. fixed fee + success premium) is an option, rather than regular fee vs. contingency fee, depending on the nature of the case. Only after meeting with the prospective client does one get a better insight on the merits of their case and whether you will be left choking on the pits, but it happens.
Good. Now that you’ve calmed down, I will ask the question you meant to ask and then answer it.
Greenfield, but don’t potential clients have to meet a lawyer, decide whether they are a good fit, before retaining them? How can they meet a few lawyers if each was to charge for the meeting? Isn’t this unfair to potential clients?
Great question, Jamison. Experience is that clients who go shopping for lawyers, as opposed to seek out referrals, are looking for price rather than fit. While there are some of the latter, they are few, mostly because they want to stay out of jail/prison and care less about your bedside manner (at least at this stage of the game) than about your ability. Usually, they have already gotten a referral, but found out the cost and don’t care to/can’t pay it. So they go shopping.
If your goal is to be the cheapest lawyer in town, then this is the right way to go. If you goal is to sell yourself because of the quality of your representation, then this will kill you.
Further, a potential client will see whether you value yourself and your time, or will give it away to anyone who asks. No one respects what they get for free, as it can’t be worth much if you can’t charge for it.
These aren’t the clients you want. These aren’t the client that form the foundation of a successful quality practice. They are daytrippers, looky-lous. These are other lawyers rejects. These are people without money but who want get your quality service on the cheap.
Potential clients can’t distinguish a good lawyer from a loser based on a meeting. Any idiot can make a client feel warm and fuzzy, no matter how crappy they are. But you can establish yourself as a lawyer providing excellent quality from the outset by informing callers that you do not spend your days trying to persuade shoppers to buy you, but defending your clients. They will respect you for that.
As for getting the clients in the door, that comes from doing excellent work and client referrals. There is no substitute in this practice for client referrals, unless your goal is low price/high volume practice. If so, then forget everything I’ve said as it doesn’t apply.
It serves the same purpose. I rarely have an initial consultation because clients come in to retain me, not to “consult”. The point is that you aren’t giving yourself away to other lawyer’s rejects, freeloaders and price shoppers, not that you hope to get rich on consultation fees.
Thank you. I do ask insightful questions, eliciting equally insightful responses.
I don’t disagree overall, but I’ve had plenty of situations where I’ve done what I think is subjectively and objectively excellent work and the client walks away hating me. How come the prosecutor didn’t apologize to me? Why did this take so long? Why’d the judge have to be so condescending as he sentenced me to time served? What’s this check in with my probation officer hassle all about? And I’m pretty certain this experience is not unique to me. So I think there’s definitely a client-relations and managing expectations to getting clients in the door and/or getting those client referrals.
You are insightful indeed.
That’s a client management issue, which has been the subject of others posts here.
I have found that the more the clients pay, the happier they are with me. Maybe you’re not charging enough?
I’ve long suspected the same thing.
FWIW in the beginning I experienced what a scam “free” “consultations” were after I guess two of them and charged $25 later raised to $50. Even that kept the tire kickers away. Worked for me. Geez.
Stop being mean to New Guy.
— Fellow New Guy
Don’t cry, teacup.
An interesting discussion. I am trying to imagine the initial conversation between Scott and a person in need of his services: “Hi, I’m Scott Greenfield. You’ve contacted me because you need a pretty good criminal defense lawyer (no need to boost the ego here). You heard that from a former client or perhaps from another lawyer. Well you are charged with ‘X’ crime. My fee is $”Y”. Pay it now and I will represent you.”
C’mon, old friend. That’s not how it works in the real world. If your gripe is with the ‘marketers’, I’ll join the charge, having watched the self-promoters promote rather than provide quality representation. At the same time I have seen quality attorneys joining the ranks of marketers – making money, as too many of us realize too late in practice, is not a mortal sin.
I don’t call the initial contact with the potential client a ‘consultation’, and I don’t charge for it either. Like you I’d rather take the call and get to the bottom of what their issues are. It lasts as long as it takes me to determine if I want to take the case, what services I will likely have to provide, determined what my fee will be for those service, what arrangements I choose to live with – knowing that if I do take it installments the next one might not show up.
Sometimes that contact takes 10 minutes or less; sometimes an hour or more. It also provides the ‘consumer’ the opportunity to see my mastery of the subject matter. In 33 years of practice I can’t remember more than a dozen criminal clients not retaining me; (on the other hand, as a small town GP, the comparison (read low COST)shopping that goes on in real estate transactions is simply cutthroat over what amounts to a couple of hundred dollars – I’ve lost dozens of deals over $250 or less from people spending more than $100,000 on property.)
Criminal cases often develop very fast after the alleged crime was committed; the client’s immediate freedom may be on the line, how they (first timers I’m talking about – repeaters will either come back due to the service previously provided, or not)get to a criminal defense attorney is not based on their own experience – and it is a time of high stress – so why belittle them for wanting to talk a little, and negotiate a little, and shop a little.
May I ask for some free business advice? When vetting clients on the phone, how do you determine whether they can afford your fee if they never ask the question? Do you simply get enough info to determine a fee, then tell it to them before an initial appointment? Asking for money was so ackward the first time I did it. I felt like I did the first time I asked a girl on a date. It is getting easier, fortunately.
Its times like these I’m glad I don’t deal with this shit. A question from the voyeur though: what would you suggest the Jamisons do in the meantime while they are trying to get to sustainability? Isn’t it kind of a luxury you can afford because of your success rather than a way to build a fledgling practice?
If you’re happy to chat with anyone who calls, regardless of whether they have any intention or ability to retain you, that’s fine. Others, including myself, prefer to limit our meetings to those individuals who are potential clients. It’s not to belittle the tire-kickers and price shoppers, but a deliberate decision not to spend a scarce resource, time, unproductively.
Except with people who I’ve previously represented, I would never quote a fee on the telephone. I will, however, discuss normal fee ranges for the type of case, so that the potential client can appreciate whether it’s within his ability to pay. If not, I will often suggest other lawyers who might be a more appropriate fit.
A practice isn’t developed overnight. But it develops based on the type of foundation you create. If the foundation is built on hard work, quality representation and client satisfaction, then it will bring in clients who want your services because of your expertise, not your low, low price.
It’s not all that hard to do, in the sense that most clients are disappointed with the level of effort, communication and professionalism of their lawyer. Provide these things and you stand out, and clients will let others know. The best complement a lawyer can get is that he’s expensive, but he’s worth it. Make sure that you’re worth it.
I’ve found that the more clients pay, the more they expect miracles to happen. Of course, that’s not unique to those who pay more, but they seem to gripe more if and when the miracle doesn’t happen.
Again, it’s not just the amount of the fee, but client management. If you make clear up front what the client is paying for, then you can control the perpetuation of unreasonable expectations. When lawyers oversell themselves or the outcome in exchange for getting the case or the fee, then the lawyer can’t blame the client for expecting the lawyer to produce what he promised.