Unemployed Solicitors ?

Amazotheamazing

elgransenor wrote: »

A solicitor is not just a legal professional but also in many cases a small business person and if somebody uses the tactic of loss leading with a low fee conveyance to get clients in the door and hopefully generate more profitable business down the road in the relationship..............thats their call.
Its a decision that most small businesses make at some point to build their business.

But do most small businesses have a similar business model to that of a solicitor?

The concept of loss leading applies to big supermarkets in the most part, to the detriment of small businesses, but even if this wasn't the case, you'd be incredibly naive to think because a you undercharge a client on a conveyance that the same client will return to give you more profitable work. Even if the client did, it could be years before he or she had use for a solicitor again.

Out of curiosity, how much do you think you would have make a week to keep a small solicitors open, let alone operate at a profit? We're not talking small change like a few pence lost on bread and milk to draw in customers.

Fwiw, like I've always said, there will always be a market for good, capable and competent solicitors, same as there is for plumbers or electricians, but imo, blackhall is not run to a very high standard and the profession as a whole will suffer for it.

TheDemiurge

partyguinness wrote: »

I am a solicitor and I heard about the Joe Duffy Show yesterday. What was she thinking going on that show>>>>>:(:( Was she expecting sympathy???

Lets be honest most people who listen to that show are very angry and leisurely who are never happy with anything or anyone sitting around on their arses bitching.

I've only just listened to the whole broadcast - I'm a solicitor myself - I suspect she was actually having a go at the Law Society and the insurance brokers for knowing this was coming and staying mum, rather than looking for sympathy from the whingers.

Just IMHO.

Amazotheamazing

TheDemiurge wrote: »

Any solicitor going on a radio or TV show is going to get savaged - that's why no one usually does, not even the Law Society.

Insurance companies obviously now think that conveyancers are a poor risk, and my own broker told me as well that the root of this is from fixed fee conveyancers and legal secretaries and apprentices doing the work. There's a huge number of claims being made now, and I bet many punters who paid peanuts regret the hassle they now have in sorting the matter out.

I've just listened to the full broadcast. She was right to diss that idiot who said he paid 6,500 Euro for a conveyance on a 250,000 Euro house. There were either serious title issues or else he's assuming that stamp duty and reg fees form part of the solicitor's fee.

The Law Society can't stop the numbers entering as that would be contrary to competition law.

I don't think we've even seen the start of it yet, one of the established conveyancing firms in Limerick has put solicitors on a three-day week. Next 12 months will be fun, even if there wasn't a huge number of people qualifying in the next 6 months....

partyguinness

I went through Blackhall in 2002 and looking back on it..it could have been a lot better.

Opening up entry numbers was based on a fear from the Law Society that they would be forced to give up exclusive training by the Competition Authority. This mantra that deregulation is essential is very dangerous and asking for trouble. We will end up like the US..ambulance chasers at the bottom drumming up business just to surviv.

There is also a misconception that competition is always good..the legal system or legal profession is not the same as, say, running a taxi business or grocery shop..there has be certain standards maintained especially with the duty solicitors have toward clients re monies, advising legal rights etc.

TheDemiurge

partyguinness wrote: »

We will end up like the US..ambulance chasers at the bottom drumming up business just to survive.

Except even ambulance chasing is gone, too.

partyguinness

TheDemiurge wrote: »

I've only just listened to the whole broadcast - I'm a solicitor myself - I suspect she was actually having a go at the Law Society and the insurance brokers for knowing this was coming and staying mum, rather than looking for sympathy from the whingers.

Just IMHO.

The insurance companies obviously fear that there are more Michael Lynns out there..not an unreasonable fear. Have you noticed the deluge of letters from Banks looking for their title deeds..!!

TheDemiurge

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

I don't think we've even seen the start of it yet, one of the established conveyancing firms in Limerick has put solicitors on a three-day week. Next 12 months will be fun, even if there wasn't a huge number of people qualifying in the next 6 months....

How many are due to qualify within the next 6 months, do you know?

3 day weeks, that's just a disaster. Of course, we're all minted and oh so greedy people.

Amazotheamazing

partyguinness wrote: »

I went through Blackhall in 2002 and looking back on it..it could have been a lot better.

Opening up entry numbers was based on a fear from the Law Society that they would be forced to give up exclusive training by the Competition Authority. This mantra that deregulation is essential is very dangerous and asking for trouble. We will end up like the US..ambulance chasers at the bottom drumming up business just to surviv.

There is also a misconception that competition is always good..the legal system or legal profession is not the same as, say, running a taxi business or grocery shop..there has be certain standards maintained especially with the duty solicitors have toward clients re monies, advising legal rights etc.

Well this is my biggest issue with the current set-up, you pass a set of fairly easy exams to get into Blackhall, pass another set of easy exams (this time openbook) at the end of PPC1 and again during PPC2. The standard is set ridiculously low imo. All it does is encourage people to take short cuts and to do just enough to pass exams (and I'm no exception).

There's a host of people qualifying with only the vaguest grasp of the law. In 10 years time, it will probably be big business to go around mopping up their mistakes...

Amazotheamazing

TheDemiurge wrote: »

How many are due to qualify within the next 6 months, do you know?

well, it's all of the PPC group from 2006 to 2008, think it's about 650-700 people?

partyguinness

TheDemiurge wrote: »

How many are due to qualify within the next 6 months, do you know?

To be honest I dont know but i would say the vast majority will be unemployed. The apprentice in our office, in fact I wouldnt even employ her, she cant do anything and only spent her time chasing up loan cheques (and even that has stopped) and feeling sorry for herself. The next 6 months will be carnage.

partyguinness

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Well this is my biggest issue with the current set-up, you pass a set of fairly easy exams to get into Blackhall, pass another set of easy exams (this time openbook) at the end of PPC1 and again during PPC2. The standard is set ridiculously low imo. All it does is encourage people to take short cuts and to do just enough to pass exams (and I'm no exception).

There's a host of people qualifying with only the vaguest grasp of the law. In 10 years time, it will probably be big business to go around mopping up their mistakes...

In fairness I did my FE1s in 2001 and I dont remember them being fairly easy..well the workload anyway was a bitch..but once in there it was party time 5 nights a week..

partyguinness

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

well, it's all of the PPC group from 2006 to 2008, think it's about 650-700 people?

Christ thats ridiculous...even 370 in 2002 was alot.

TheDemiurge

The solicitor on yesterday didn't explain it well and she sounded flustered, but principals of practices will have to keep a really close eye on the standard of work over the next year or so. Claims prevention is going to be an absolute priority. So those staff who aren't making the cut will have to be let go in every sense of the word.

looking4advice

I was on the PPC1 in September '06. There was a Summer Course of about 150 the Autumn Course which had about 500 and a Cork course which had about 180. There were roughly the same numbers the year after and a slight reduction the following year (this years intake).

Pretty much all the big firms are not keeping on their trainees in January 09 and a lot of those in other firms who are being kept on are being paid a trainee salary and kept on an ad hoc basis. There will be about 400+ trainees looking for jobs this coming January I would estimate. There are still a lot of newly qualifieds from last year who have not got sorted yet and of course lets not forget the Solicitors that have been left go in the last few months.

Probably looking at 750-1,000 Solicitors looking for work in January.
Happy days.

looking4advice

Entrance into Blackhall is a joke. The exams are quite difficult but you do have 10 sittings over 5 years to get them. The likes of Griffith College have good notes and it just takes a lot of memorising to get them.

It was amazing the amount of students in there who had little idea of the fundamentals of law e.g. contract law. There were a lot of pretty stupid people in there to be honest.

One way I would suggest to stop to flow would be to have it mandatory that non Law graduates do a 2 year Cert/Diploma on the core subjects.

I do realise that you don't need to be a genius to be a Solicitor - at the end of the day we are just at an educational advantage from the public, but you would to have some bright people in the Profession.

The Profession is going to be f$$$ed in the next few years.........

EC1000

TheDemiurge wrote: »

the point which she didn't make as well as she could have

Not sure if she was able to make a coherent point at all to be honest...

TheDemiurge wrote: »

Why should practising solicitors foot the insurance bill for Michael Lynn and Thomas Byrne anyway?

Because thats how insurance works..... get over it

TheDemiurge

EC1000 wrote: »

Because thats how insurance works..... get over it

There isn't any need to be abusive, thanks. The situation is more complex than you think.

The insurance issue is putting one lady I know of (not the lady on air yesterday) based in the midlands out of business next week.

EC1000

TheDemiurge wrote: »

There isn't any need to be abusive, thanks.

Apologies, not my intention.

I'm not critical of her as a solicitor. I just think it was very naive to go onto the JD show in the first place - not sure where that was ever going to get her..... The public perception of solicitors recently is based on th antics of Lynn and Byrne and she was a sitting duck imho and didn't handle it very well

TheDemiurge

EC1000 wrote: »

Apologies, not my intention.

Ok.

TheDemiurge

I think it's fair to say that the profession at the moment is deeply divided within itself, and also ill equipped to face the onslaughts of the world outside.

I really don't know what can be done to improve the situation. I used to get savaged on here a couple of months ago when I said that things were looking bad now I look around and see practices and solicitors doing even worse than I am!

I think that we really need to refocus as a profession, the tearing each other apart in every way is bringing us all down.

TheDemiurge

EC1000 wrote: »

Apologies, not my intention.

I'm not critical of her as a solicitor. I just think it was very naive to go onto the JD show in the first place - not sure where that was ever going to get her..... The public perception of solicitors recently is based on th antics of Lynn and Byrne and she was a sitting duck imho and didn't handle it very well

Well you see, this is the Catch 22. Someone has to jump first if perceptions are ever to change. The Law Society didn't handle the Lynn/Byrne fiasco well at all and I think there's a huge amount of residual resentment because of that.

I only heard the broadcast this evening but my first impression (and based on my knowledge of a colleague in the midlands) was that she was trying to goad the Society into action rather than trying to get sympathy from Uncle Joe et al. I could be wrong but I think not.

Amazotheamazing

EC1000 wrote: »

Apologies, not my intention.

I'm not critical of her as a solicitor. I just think it was very naive to go onto the JD show in the first place - not sure where that was ever going to get her..... The public perception of solicitors recently is based on th antics of Lynn and Byrne and she was a sitting duck imho and didn't handle it very well

Agree, but it does indicate how bad things are that she would in the first place. She was foolish to go on Joe Duffy, not sure what she hoped to achieve by it.

Amazotheamazing

TheDemiurge wrote: »

Well you see, this is the Catch 22. Someone has to jump first if perceptions are ever to change. The Law Society didn't handle the Lynn/Byrne fiasco well at all and I think there's a huge amount of residual resentment because of that.

I only heard the broadcast this evening but my first impression (and based on my knowledge of a colleague in the midlands) was that she was trying to goad the Society into action rather than trying to get sympathy from Uncle Joe et al. I could be wrong but I think not.

She doesn't know the Law Society very well then.

TheDemiurge

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Agree, but it does indicate how bad things are that she would in the first place. She was foolish to go on Joe Duffy, not sure what she hoped to achieve by it.

What's happening wouldn't in fairness be apparent to those employed in practice, only partners and principals who wouldn't want to discuss it with their employees/trainees. It's clear to me that the solicitor yesterday was only using the JD Show as a method of speaking to the Society where they'd have to listen. I don't think she gave one whit about the whingers tbh. I agree that it looks very bad for the profession when a solicitor has to go on Joe Duffy, but nobody - and I mean nobody - seems to stand up for us. We whine about the Law Society but then won't commit to our opinion in the public domain. That lady was absolutely right to hit out at the Boland Regulations which allowed this disaster to happen.

Anyway, the substantive issue - insurance for practices has to be renewed on December 1. It was known from way back in the summer that premiums were going to soar. 375 practices in the UK closed in September when the UK renewal date then passed. Most insurers for Irish firms are London based, other than the SMDF which is charging 8,480 Euro per year per solicitor going forward (as opposed to circa 3,000 Euro at the moment).

The Law Soc here sent around some rather abrupt literature stating what would happen to practices if they couldn't afford the insurance. I think small practices certainly felt disenfranchised and left out in the cold by the Society - certainly I did although I managed to escape with a 50% increase as opposed to 200% which is the average - and the insurance issue has to be a fundamental factor in the amount of redundancies we are hearing this week around town. If practices start closing here in Ireland - and I know of one that is next week - clients will start asking why and what's caused a situation where their file has to be transferred. Like it or not, this will become a matter for the public domain.

Anyway, apart from the first solicitor - who the hell was that blatantly advertising a premium rate legal chatline? Jeez, THAT'S desperation, and really embarrassing.

Gangu

TheDemiurge wrote: »

What's happening wouldn't in fairness be apparent to those employed in practice, only partners and principals who wouldn't want to discuss it with their employees/trainees. It's clear to me that the solicitor yesterday was only using the JD Show as a method of speaking to the Society where they'd have to listen.

The Society has done very little to keep the profession competitive and keen. I understand her view. As a partner, it just keeps getting worse and the pressure is unbelievable. Bar some weak words in the Gazette we are seeing very little leadership from the Society in any area, in my view. I think we have many in the Society who are incumbents of yesteryear and who need a bit of a kick or should experience the sharp end of business for a wake up call (I could say a bit like FF but then what sort of can of worms would I unlease then!! ).

Professional services are suffering badly, and the law profession has been poorly directed when one looks at the guidance, the numbers in blackhall and just qualified, the focus on certain areas of practice, I could go on. What sort of dialogue or involvement of those beyond the usual names and faces have they sought to engage in? We are not as well positioned as other services because of this leadership. Every day brings some new story, each a personal crisis for the person invovled. Hearing a very tragic story today involving a guy in the financial services world brought it home to me that we should try to bring some perspective to what's involved.

professore

TheDemiurge wrote: »

Just found this thread. I'm a solicitor, ten years qualified and practising this year, and I have to say that on balance I deeply regret it. Not so much the years spent training, but p***ing the last ten years away on a "profession" that is as tenable as candy floss. To the OP and other trainees, get out of it as fast as you possibly can.

There is no doubt that being a solicitor was a good thing as opposed to other trades in bad times of the 1980s. Conveyancing fees were 1.5% of the purchase price and 1% of the sale price. Whilst this may seem a lot to the man on the street, the fees ensured a steady stream of cashflow so that solicitors could bankroll their practices and take on litigation for clients without seeking payment up front.

Solicitors - being total idiots - were the only profession/trade to actually drop their fees during the recent "boom". A conveyance cannot be done properly, and the solicitor's overheads met, for approximately 700 Euro plus VAT and outlays, yet this is all you will pay in the Dublin region. One firm in Kerry started it all, and the whole pyramid came crashing down for lawyers after that. Meanwhile, estate agents continue to command 1% for bu**er all. And then some.

On top of this, the Boland regulations of 1987 (which led to the whole Lynn/Byrne debacle) put the onus onto the high street solicitors for the lending bank's work, where they certified title (instead of the bank having its own staff doing it). The Law Society did nothing to stop this in 1987 and they are paying the price now. The high street solicitor can be sued by the banks if they cock up the conveyance with a policy excess per file of 5,000 Euro (in spite of the paltry conveyancing fee and with aggressive clients telephoning morning noon and night). My insurance premium for 2008 was 2,750 Euro, and because of Lynn and Byrne, I'm looking at 9,100 Euro premium for 2009. Plus another 2,500 Euro practising certificate fee for 2009 to the Law Society (whose members are always on voicemail). I'm currently overdrawn 33,000 Euro on running costs.

The financial institutions are a nightmare to deal with - they constantly lose every piece of documentation you send them, and you won't get paid by your client if you try to bill extra for time spent redoing your work.

And as for litigation - you may as well be running the St. Vincent de Paul. It's charity work, nothing more. If someone sues someone else for say an amount of 2,000 Euro, the amount of hours you have to put in to get them that 2,000 Euro - that's assuming the Defendant pays by the way - the scale fee of 380 Euro is just laughable.

Most people do law because Mammies and Daddies bully their kids into it, thinking that it's a legal form of a printing press. What a f**king joke.

Being a solicitor in Ireland, you're at the bottom of food chain financially, and the top of the hit list in every other way. Get the hell out of it, whilst you still can.:mad::mad::mad:

Ouch .... not a solicitor myself but run an IT business - maybe you should consider only taking cases for people looking for 2M euro ?

maidhc

Gangu wrote: »

The Society has done very little to keep the profession competitive and keen. I understand her view. As a partner, it just keeps getting worse and the pressure is unbelievable. Bar some weak words in the Gazette we are seeing very little leadership from the Society in any area, in my view. I think we have many in the Society who are incumbents of yesteryear and who need a bit of a kick or should experience the sharp end of business for a wake up call (I could say a bit like FF but then what sort of can of worms would I unlease then!! ).

I'm a N.Q. solicitor (one of the tiny minority with a job going forward, touch wood).

If there is one group of people I resent, it is the law society. Having gone through college I felt the lecturers and the institution itself cared about the students. The law society was quite the opposite. They liked my money, but were close to impossible to deal with at every turn.

I wrote an angry letter to them last year regarding the way we were treated (as cash cows), but I didn't get so much as an acknowledgment. If I had the choice I would distance myself from the Law Society, it is an organisation that has outlived its usefulness, and strikes me as little other than a place where solicitors who are bitter for not being made DC judges end up.

elgransenor

professore wrote: »

Ouch .... not a solicitor myself but run an IT business - maybe you should consider only taking cases for people looking for 2M euro ?

Originally Posted by TheDemiurge
Just found this thread. I'm a solicitor, ten years qualified and practising this year, and I have to say that on balance I deeply regret it. Not so much the years spent training, but p***ing the last ten years away on a "profession" that is as tenable as candy floss. To the OP and other trainees, get out of it as fast as you possibly can.

There is no doubt that being a solicitor was a good thing as opposed to other trades in bad times of the 1980s. Conveyancing fees were 1.5% of the purchase price and 1% of the sale price. Whilst this may seem a lot to the man on the street, the fees ensured a steady stream of cashflow so that solicitors could bankroll their practices and take on litigation for clients without seeking payment up front.

Solicitors - being total idiots - were the only profession/trade to actually drop their fees during the recent "boom". A conveyance cannot be done properly, and the solicitor's overheads met, for approximately 700 Euro plus VAT and outlays, yet this is all you will pay in the Dublin region. One firm in Kerry started it all, and the whole pyramid came crashing down for lawyers after that. Meanwhile, estate agents continue to command 1% for bu**er all. And then some.

On top of this, the Boland regulations of 1987 (which led to the whole Lynn/Byrne debacle) put the onus onto the high street solicitors for the lending bank's work, where they certified title (instead of the bank having its own staff doing it). The Law Society did nothing to stop this in 1987 and they are paying the price now. The high street solicitor can be sued by the banks if they cock up the conveyance with a policy excess per file of 5,000 Euro (in spite of the paltry conveyancing fee and with aggressive clients telephoning morning noon and night). My insurance premium for 2008 was 2,750 Euro, and because of Lynn and Byrne, I'm looking at 9,100 Euro premium for 2009. Plus another 2,500 Euro practising certificate fee for 2009 to the Law Society (whose members are always on voicemail). I'm currently overdrawn 33,000 Euro on running costs.

The financial institutions are a nightmare to deal with - they constantly lose every piece of documentation you send them, and you won't get paid by your client if you try to bill extra for time spent redoing your work.

And as for litigation - you may as well be running the St. Vincent de Paul. It's charity work, nothing more. If someone sues someone else for say an amount of 2,000 Euro, the amount of hours you have to put in to get them that 2,000 Euro - that's assuming the Defendant pays by the way - the scale fee of 380 Euro is just laughable.

Most people do law because Mammies and Daddies bully their kids into it, thinking that it's a legal form of a printing press. What a f**king joke.

Being a solicitor in Ireland, you're at the bottom of food chain financially, and the top of the hit list in every other way. Get the hell out of it, whilst you still can.




Uncanny similarities between the above biography,circumstances and arguments and quoted insurance prices with the solicitor caller to Joe Duffy show.

Sweet Afton

Someone above suggested that Law graduates should hie themselves to Australia should take note of this from Crikey today:

Following the redundancies from Corrs Chambers Westgarth, Deacons Lawyers have today called all staff together to announce cuts as well. Word has it that HR has booked out most meeting rooms in their Melbourne office to convey the bad news to mainly junior and less senior lawyers and support staff. Other firms have strongly encouraged staff to take extra holiday leave over the Christmas break.

Amazotheamazing

Sweet Afton wrote: »

Someone above suggested that Law graduates should hie themselves to Australia should take note of this from Crikey today:

Damn, there goes my plan. Anyone want fries with that?