Every article by some self-proclaimed legal futurist or social media guru (available for speaking engagements and vegamatic demonstrations) has pounded on this line for years, it being at the core of our fabulous changes that compel you to get on board or miss the train. Because, you know, social media is here and the practice of law is changing.
For a few years now, unsolicited emails have been coming in describing, usually in completely incoherent form, the most intimate details of people’s lives and crimes, seeking representation. Before you get all excited, thinking that this is the path to finally getting some cases so you won’t spend your day reading blogs and hoping the phone will ring, they want a lawyer. They do not want to pay a lawyer.
You see, they find us through websites like Avvo that give the deliberate impression that lawyers are sitting in front of their computers just waiting for their emails, as if there’s a smörgåsbord of attorneys who want nothing more than to provide free representation to anyone who asks. We’re their’s for the asking, for the taking. They’re doing us a favor.
But all this changed yesterday when an email came in, naturally unsolicited, but with a twist.
Hello, I am being charged with a [small time crime]. So this is a felony. I want to know how much you charge for the initial surrender and arraignment and then how much after. Please e-mail me quotes as I am comparing and cannot speak on the phone right now.Thank you.
Welcome to the glorious world of technology. No string of fabulous adjectives or cute but vague phrases of the glory of social media will change the significance of this email. Here’s a paying client. Here’s a client who needs a lawyer. While the case isn’t earth-shattering, it’s a felony as opposed to the typical shoplifting or public peeing that usually draws people to the internet to find a lawyer.
Some lawyer will get this email and respond.
Some lawyer will get this email and send back “quotes.”
And if the “quotes” are better than the quotes some other lawyer sends back, then maybe he will find the time to speak with the lawyer on the phone.
In the past, I’ve written about defendants researching lawyers on the internet to death, finding 20 (or 100) to interview and spending weeks meeting with lawyers before making a decision, all the while the case moving forward to the defendant’s detriment. And they don’t realize the opportunities lost in the case while doing what some monumental fool told them to do in some post on how to hire a lawyer. It’s a disaster.
This email reflects the potential for the next wave of incredibly stupid things that social media could do to lawyers and clients. Forget the arrogance of this jerk, which can be easily fixed during the 8 months he’ll spend on Riker’s Island, because he’s too busy and important to speak to the person into whose hands he’s about to put his life. Forget the absence of any notion that he might want to pick his lawyer based on any metric of competence, but rather asks for “quotes” as if he were buying a used car.
Implicit in this emails is that lawyers are standing by, wanting nothing more than to handle this guy’s case and provide an enticing quote in the hope of capturing his business. What struck me as far worse than what the sender of this email has in mind is that some lawyer, maybe a desperate kid with loans to pay off, or maybe some pathetic old timer who shuffles around the hallways in his black sneakers in search of an arraignment, will jump at the chance to respond.
Many criminal defendants have a peculiar way of looking at the world, which is why they’re put their financial self-interest ahead of the harm they do to others. They now have a new tool with which to do so. Many lawyers will take any business they can get, happily demeaning themselves for their next meal. Most legal futurists and social media gurus will take any example they can find of commoditization of law, the unbundling of services, the transparency of fees and the fungibility of lawyers as proof that they can show us the way to prestige and wealth via the internet.
The high volume lawyers will love this email. They’ve long worked on the notion that cheap fees and quick deals will make them good money, and this is right down their alley. They’ll quote a couple hundred dollars for the arraignment. and happily give the price list for a quick felony plea. They won’t even need to send out fliers to promote cheap, quick and lousy, as the defendants are coming to them. It’s a perfect fit.
How would you have responded to this email? How will you respond when it’s in your inbox? Remember, if your answer is that you wouldn’t, someone else will. The defendant who sent me this email may have issues, but it’s not his fault that he thinks this is a brilliant way to get a lawyer for the least amount of money. This is what he’s been told by the social media gurus. And this is what some desperate lawyer will grab so he doesn’t have to play another game of spider solitaire.
This is the future of the practice of law in the digital age. Are you happy now?
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
FWIW, this is my response to these types of calls/emails: I always respond, even if the call or email is ridiculous. I respond because I think its the professional thing to do. With that said, most people don’t like my response. My response to these types of inquiries (and my rule for all inquiries) is that I don’t “quote” fees over the phone or via email without first having the defendant come in for a face-to-face discussion of their case. One, seeing a client in person allows me to evaluate their presentation and personality. For me this is a critical analysis for the defense of any criminal charge. Two, if the client isn’t responsible enough to make an appointment and show up to it, that’s probably someone who will have trouble showing up to their court dates. Defending a criminal charge is hard enough without tap dancing around missed appearances and begging for a “warning letter” instead of a bench warrant.
Assuming this defendant did come into my office for a consultation and asked for this “pay as you go” type of fee; I wouldn’t do it. I can be creative with fees, I can bill hourly against a retainer, I can charge a flat fee, I can charge a fee on a credit card, and I can maybe even take a payment plan. But I’m not getting undertaking a matter for fee that’s less than that what I think is needed to defend the case the way it needs to be defended. I won’t have my professional judgment compromised by a fee agreement.
After going through this exercise at least a few times with these types of calls and emails, I’ve yet to have one of them schedule an appointment, show up, and hire me. The ones who do appreciate my service and professionalism never start out this way. Funny how that works.
I’m curious to hear how others would/do handle this.
Cool story, bro.
Thanks. You still scare the crap out of me.
If the best advice is “look in the yellow pages”, why are lawyers doing anything except using the yellow pages?
Asking your friends and family for a recommendation hardly helps if they have no clue either. Does it help to phone the bar association?
I tried this approach, and found that these price-shoppers are all too happy to make an appointment that they won’t keep, costing me valuable time. So now I ignore tell the callers what my minimum fee for their sort of case is. That sends 99% of them on their way.
We have judges who require defendants, before getting appointed counsel, to call x number of lawyers and get fee quotes. When I get one of these callers, the minimum fee is always $100,000 for a misdemeanor; “please tell the judge.”
Where did you ever get the idea that one should look in the yellow pages? Isn’t there a special home for people like you to chat with each other?
He’s young. He’ll learn.
Scott is right; I am young (a 31 year old spring chicken) and learning. I hope he doesn’t throw me a beating for that.
At first, I did quote prices over the phone and I found that it spawned more phone calls after the “shopper” had called around town, found the cheapest price, and then wanted me to “beat” the best price. Obviously, I wasn’t interested in playing that game.
Admittedly, I’m not getting the volume of appointments that scheduling these consultations amounts to a huge burden on me. My thought is that once I get to that point, I’ll begin charging for the consultation.
No beating for you, Joe. I think you’re doing great. These are all things I’ve talked about in the past (I know, too many old posts to be bothered with, and my disinclination to repeat myself makes it hard to know what came before), but each lawyer has to learn it for himself.
When you compete on price, you reduce yourself to a commodity. We’re not widgets, one the same as the next, and only lawyers who do high volume, low/no quality, want those clients. So they’re happy to pay less and lose more. It’s a perfect fit.
Thanks, Scott. I was really hoping for that beating though (I was joking about that).