Some years back, a lawyer in my building became a big hero within the black community and, not surprisingly, was deluged with clients seeking his representation. He was a pretty good lawyer, one that I admired, but he made a fatal mistake. He took on these cases, accepted retainers and made a bundle. He was flying high.
But one day the bill came. When a lawyer takes on a case and gets paid up front, there’s a warm feeling. It goes away, however, when you have to do the work for which you’ve been paid. People believe in you. People are relying on you. The initial smiles and handshakes give way to hard work. When you’ve shaken too many hands, smiled at too many new clients and taken in a bundle, there aren’t enough hours in the day to fulfill your end of the bargain. This lawyer couldn’t do the work; there just wasn’t enough time. He was disbarred. The mighty hero fell from grace.
At My Shingle, Carolyn Elefant asks whether a new solo, straight out of school, can establish a practice that earns him $160,000, as claimed by North Carolina criminal defense lawyer Damon Cheston.
For starters, based on my own rough calculations, and Chetson’s own discussions here, I’m fairly sure that his numbers are indeed plausible (some commenters suspected puffery). According to Chetson’s website, he charges between $2000 and $3500 for most DUIs, $1000 to $3500 for misdemeanors and felonies start at $2000 – and he says here that his website grossed him $200,000 in clients. At $2500 per case, that’s around 80 cases per year – or about seven per month. Those are completely reasonable numbers if a solo is leveraging the web.
But the big question is….can Chetson’s success be replicated by other solos?
While Carolyn is dubious that Cheston’s “success” reflects something that any new solo can accomplish, noting some structural benefits peculiar to Cheston’s situation, but in her crunching numbers, misses the fundamentals of the economics of the practice of law.
The high volume, low price route has always offered a quick way to produce revenues, and there have always been lawyers who chose that route as their business model. This isn’t an invention of the internet, though it’s now being taught by those who are extremely dangerous to the legal profession as not merely a mainstream option, but as the cool, awesome tech savvy model for young lawyers to find wealth and success in the law.
Putting aside the critical distinction between revenues and profits, a concept that isn’t adequately recognized in Carolyn’s discussion, there is no mention of the cost to be paid by the high volume lawyer. At some point, he actually has to do the work for which he’s been paid. There’s the rub. There’s the aspect universally ignored by the protagonists of internet marketing. What about the clients?
Carolyn arrives at an average of 80 new clients a year, or 7 new clients a month, which is certainly a doable number provided the fees are below what other lawyers charge and the website reflects claims that the new lawyer, new solo, is just as competent as someone who knows what they’re doing. Of course, this usually entails a liberal use of puffery and the omission of such unpleasant details as year of admission to the bar or length of employment in one’s last job.
So what’s not to like?
No lawyer can competently handle this sort of volume. While some cases go quickly into the night, others don’t. Still others require investigation, research, motions and ultimately trial. No one can try 20 cases a year, no less 80. And no new lawyer, straight out of law school, can try any case.
This isn’t to say new lawyers care nothing about clients, or don’t want to be good, competent lawyers. But it takes some time and experience to get the chops. They may try their hardest, but it’s not that easy. They may believe their doing great, but their self-assessment can’t be trusted. It’s not easy being a good lawyer. It’s just not.
In response to my comment to the post, Carolyn raises an interesting point:
At the same time, there seems to be a need for low cost service. This guy is filling a void and because his marketing is cheap the volume is a bit more viable. What is the solution to clients who don’t have cash? More PD funding I imagine or taking out loans. But what if people can’t pay? Is this model lesser of 2 evils or inherently bad? I am not CDL so I can’t say. We’ve seen what happens when puffery goes too far in murder case but is example of the worst but is there middle ground?
Would it be effective if a new lawyer’s website said:
I charge lower fees than other lawyers because I don’t have the experience they have. At the rates I charge, I can’t investigate your case and may not have the time to try it, should that be what you want. My rates are based on the assumption that you will plead guilty, whether you are guilty or not.
The plea offers made to my clients aren’t as good as those offered to other lawyers’ clients because the prosecutors know I can’t try cases and have no choice but to take whatever they offer. I won’t be able to spend time discussing your case with you because I have too many clients to deal with. I won’t be able to explain why your defense will be inadequate because it would embarrass me to admit that I’m just a warm body standing next to you in court, trying to do my best with my very limited knowledge, experience and time.
But then, I charge less than other lawyers. If that’s what you’re looking for, then I’m your man.
Is this the lesser of two evils? No. This isn’t lawyering. Lawyers have a duty to provide zealous representation to their clients, not to charge less and provide less. But the fact is that no new lawyer’s website says this. As we all know, the words “experienced and passionate” or “tough and aggressive” appear instead.
We also know these things aren’t true, and so clients who pay low fees are deceived into believing they are paying less but receiving the same quality of representation they would get from a lawyer who is competent and capable of representing them properly. We also know that it’s unethical to deceive clients, and this lack of truth isn’t dissipated by the cheers of internet marketing sycophants.
So can a new lawyer, a new solo, bring in revenues of $160,000 a year? Sure. Maybe even more. The question is whether they can afford the cost of doing so. Collecting money is easy. Representing clients is hard. There can be no discussion that doesn’t include both sides of the equation.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Excellent post.
Being a solo out of law school is an incredibly bad idea for any lawyer or his clients. (Yes, I’ve heard there are no other jobs).
Even dumber is to think that the salaries paid to the most well-credentialed law graduates at firms servicing the world’s wealthiest corporate clients, where the legal work will be supervised by multiple layers of experienced lawyers, and where the clients are looking for an expensive lawyer, not a cheap one, is remotely relevant to what a baby lawyer trying to provide low cost legal services to people in the market for low cost legal services will be able to make.
When did the big firm going rate become the measuring stick for guys doing DUI’s in North Carolina?
One thing missing here is the stupidity of the client who hires the low fee high volume lawyer. There is nothing wrong with a lawyer who charges a low fee, as long as they do the work. The problem is that lawyers are looking for that magic number. $160,000 sounds good so how to we get there.
Easy, charge $500 a case. Your office will be filled with clients. You won’t be able to capably represent them aside from whispering to them at the podium as they are pleading guilty “say yes.” Tell those potential clients in the mailers you send to their house that you are “experienced, aggressive, and will fight for their rights.” Watch the money roll in.
Clients who hire lawyers without asking questions like “when’s the last time you argued a motion in court,” or “have you ever tried a case, deserve to get nothing from their nothing lawyers.
But why should we be shocked? Lawyers are hiring failed lawyers to give them business advice without asking questions.
Stupid walks the earth in droves.
My guess is it’s just a comparison of penis size, the standard measure. While I’ve never been in favor of new lawyers going out on their own, I am in favor of unemployed new lawyers taking initiative. But there appears to be a huge gap that’s utterly ignored between the new lawyer, working with others (like a real mentor, not a made for internet marketing mentor) to learn the skills, taking on cases modestly and with recognition of limitations, working his or her way up to more significant cases, and jumping in blind with the added advantage of manufacturing an internet persona designed to deceive potential clients.
The word “modesty” keeps coming to mind. Skills first.
Is it possible that he figures a certain number of plea bargains into his mix so the work factor is lessened?
While stupid clients who go to the cheapest lawyer they can find are certainly less sympathetic, they aren’t to blame. Clients aren’t required to be smart. Just in need of a lawyer. Even stupid clients deserve a defense.
I would guess that’s a given, since it couldn’t possibly be any other way. But even so, 50% are going to need to go to the edge of trial before getting a decent plea. Maybe 10% will need to start selecting a jury before getting a decent plea. And 5% will need to go to trial. All of them will need to have the work done, from investigation to motions to preparation for trial, because you can never be sure which client is which.
It can’t be done.
And herein lies the debate between the responsibility of the lawyer in marketing themselves, and the free market consumer of legal services making educated choices.
Lawyers have a responsibility to be honest and forthcoming. But many can’t reconcils that with the wonderment of marketing. There is no definition of “experienced,” or “aggressive.” There is no requirement that a lawyer say “I’ve never tried a case.”
Clients are consumers, and while they are consuming a service from a supposedly ethical professional, there are few lawyers who in the face of a dollar bill will say “I am not going to do shit for you, if I even am the lawyer who shows up in court.”
There’s the key, that people (for whatever crazy reason) still believe that lawyers have a duty of honesty and integrity, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. They believe what lawyers say, including the deliberately misleading puffery, exageration, hyperbole that comprises what so many see as “acceptable marketing.” And yet they believe.
Some still believe that. Others assume that none of us have integrity and assume that when they hear about our jury trials or reported decisions that those are the same sort of puffery as the credentials and honors that the Rakofsky’s of the world have listed on their websites.
Let me start out this comment by mentioning my experience or lack there of, I am a just graduated law student who has worked as an intern in a large metro public defense office for the last two years. This office has been recognized as highly competent and a model for other metro offices.
You wrote that “no lawyer can handle this kind of volume” with the volume being 80 cases a year, and those cases being a mix of misdemeanors, DUIs, and felonies (for now lets assume that the new lawyer is at least somewhat realistic about the kind of cases he might be able to handle and doesn’t do really serious felonies–as much as this distinction even holds).
Let’s say that half the cases are misdemeanors, and DUIs (we are pretending that DUIs are different for the purposes of this discussion) and Felonies are each a quarter (40/20/20).
That volume strikes me as pretty low. Misdemeanor case load attorneys at this office are assigned somewhere between 300 and 350 misdemeanor cases a year. Felony attorneys are assigned about 80 cases a year (of different levels of complexity).
If I get hired on at this office, I will be expected to jump right in to my 300+ cases a year caseload while this caseload will involve a decent amount of “simple” misdemeanors like shoplifting and driving with a suspended license, my estimate is about a third of an attorney’s caseload are assaults (split between DV and non-DV), DUIs, and protection order violations. Would you consider this per se incompetent representation?
When I think about 80 cases (with a mix of misdemeanors, DUIs and felonies) that seems like demanding but reasonable caseload for a young solo (again, given my lack of experience and what I’ve seen in the PD’s office).
There are two main points that I can think of which would make me think that this 80 case caseload is too much. (1) as a solo you’re not going to have others in the office to cover a hearing, bounce ideas off of, nor have the office staff to help on the little things. That probably takes a lot more time than I’m realizing right now. (2) perhaps public defenders can’t provide competent representation and I shouldn’t be looking to them as role models. This could be true, but I would be loath to accept this premise after I’ve seen how hard they work for their clients.
So this comment isn’t meant as a challenge to your statement that a lawyer can’t competently handle the caseload described in your post. Instead I’m asking for advice as a young lawyer who has seen other lawyers handle some very heavy caseloads–even lawyers one year out of law school–and who wants to know whether he’s being realistic about what an actual private attorney can, and more importantly, should do.
Even the cynics believe when they need to.
Take a step back and look at what you’ve written, then consider whether it reflects 80 cases as being “pretty low” or 300 cases as being a fundamental failure of Gideon and competent representation.
If that is all you were going to say, then there was no reason to even make the comment. I had already suggested that perhaps I’m wrong for looking at PDs as role models.
Do you have any practical advice for what is the right level of caseload for a young solo, or are you just throwing rocks?
Nice to see you feel entitled to make demands of others.. Your expectation that I’m here for your convenience is mistaken. I am not your consultant. I’m not here to answer the insipid questions upon demand of every youngster with a keyboard.
That said, I’ll answer your question: The right level of caseload is not more than you could fully and competently handle, given your extremely limited skill and knowledge, to fruition, which would depend upon all aspects of the case in relation to your abilities.. Did you think there would a number, like 12 cases? Or have I failed you by not providing an answer that fits your paradigm?
Damn. I was gonna guess 17. I wonder if Josh is going to ask you to do his laundry next.
When I applied to law school, there was a question on the application that asked how many hours a day would I study. I responded, “how long must a man’s legs be?”
They let me in anyway.
(This is a comment left for SHG at My Shingle, but worth reposting here)
Your post is about as judgmental as anything I’ve ever seen one lawyer write about another without really knowing the first thing about the guy.
All lawyers understand that new lawyers have to work hard to provide adequate representations. But to act as if this man is a predator simply for marketing online successfully is downright reckless because your premise, that new lawyers skin clients by taking money in exchange for substandard representations, is completely misguided.
Don’t misunderstand me. I’m in no way suggesting this man is equal to a criminal lawyer with ten years under his belt. Of course he isn’t. The question is, does he offer a valuable service relative to competing services on the market. A guy with ten years behind him isn’t interested in taking an at-bat for 1300 bucks to defend a guy busted driving with a suspended license. A guy with ten years won’t lick a stamp for that amount. The ten year guy is going to be taking on clients able to pay more because they need him more.
Do traffic stop defendants really need the services of a criminal lawyer with 10-20 years of experience? NO. Even if they did, are they in a position to pay for that lawyer’s time? Nope. And you know it.
So what are these small market consumers to do? Go without counsel altogether? Rely on a public defender? If the criticism is that this guy is taking more cases than he could possibly try, nobody disagrees. But what about the public defender? At any moment a public defender is likely to have thirty to forty times the number of cases he could try in a year, and probalby five to ten times the number of files on his desk that any solo or small firm criminal lawyer is going to have.
Seriously, are you this certain that you are god’s gift to ethics? Would you turn down a 30,000 dollar retainer because you had ‘too many files’ already? No you wouldn’t, even if that meant having too many cases you could try at one time.
The old networks are withering fast. There are new players streamlining the practice of law, especially for mass consumer oriented practices: like criminal law. Get with it or fade away. But don’t come in here bashing a man who shows all the benchmarks of organization, resourcefulness, efficiency and dedication that typify a good lawyer and a good practice.
Give the new kids on the block a chance before you bash those of us who prefer earning a living with the degrees that we’ve earned to selling cars, serving drinks, or working for another megalomaniac practicing dinosaur law.
Of course it’s judgmental. That’s what lawyers do, make judgments, exercise ethical discretion and try to prevent others from engaging in ethical violations. It’s our duty to do so. We are all “god’s gift to ethics” if we are doing our job right; there is no room in this profession for anyone who thinks ethics is something to be ignored, fudged or avoided.
You ask:
I would. I have. Many times. This must seem absurd to a young, hungry lawyer, reared in this new age of changing paradigms. There’s no new age. There’s no changing paradigms. They’ve been lying to you. Why do you suppose the megalomaniac dinosaurs have thriving practices getting those big money cases for which you would give your left arm? They don’t tout themselves on the internet or lie about the experience and qualifications.
You can call them names, if it makes you feel less puny, but they have the skills and history that brings in real clients who want their representation. Not because they pretend their lawyers, but because their competence is a known quantity.
Being a lawyer isn’t a right to earn a living. Being a lawyer doesn’t mean you get an ethical pass. And though every case doesn’t require Clarence Darrow, it still requires a lawyer who will put his client’s interest before his own. If you can’t do this, then you should be a lawyer.
And if you aren’t willing conduct yourself ethically and put clients first, then all the self-serving claims and colorful adjectives are a sham, and you’re deceiving clients and yourself. You’re just a person with a license to practice law, not a lawyer. Lawyers are “god’s gift to ethics,” and if you’re not, then you should be selling cars or serving drinks because you’re no lawyer.
There are plenty of lawyers with ten years of experience willing to handle a driving with a suspended license case for 1300 bucks. Spend time at a courthouse, and you’ll see them, in droves.
It is for all the reasons made evident by your ability to write such a response sincerely and in good faith that I feel, as a citizen, safer and better armed having read your blog.
The funny thing about this assertion is that a guy with 10 years experience, to me, is still a relative n00b. To a law student, he’s ancient. Perspective is a funny thing.
I have ten years experience and also think of myself as a relative noob. One of my mentors early on told me he thought it took about ten years to become a complete lawyer- not complete as in finished, with nothing more to learn, but complete as in the bare minimum of experience to start making real strategy/advice decisions on your own. I think he’s probably about right.
I think TLO’s assumption that after ten years, nobody’s interested in a suspended license case belies a mentality that things just happen- go to school, get a job. Put in ten years, and your practice will automatically grow from whatever walks in the door to clients with big money. It won’t.
I knew much more 1 year out than 10 years out, and 20, and 30 years out.
Years ago when I was a prosecutor in the city attorney’s office it was me, my secretary and 1,900 misdemeanor cases per year. I had 2 trial days per week with 25+ cases set for eacdh trial day: did 4+ bench trials weekly (traffic cases which usually took about an hour each) and at one time hit a string of 1 jury trial per week for just shy of 4 months. I became pretty adept at plea bargaining due to the volume, but still took cases to trial. It wqas so busy you didn’t have time to think…however, being the prosecutor gave me lots more control over what cases would or would not go (as opposed to the defense lawyers who got jerked around by the scheduling).