Clients vs law firms – the war that dare not speak its name

Definition of a professional

Definition of a professional: "someone who puts the interests of his or her clients ahead his or her own interests"

Does this mean the law is no longer a profession but a business?

Discuss.

Antony Brougham -08 Feb 2012 | 08:05

Professional snobbery

@ Antony Brougham -08 Feb 2012 | 08:05

Sorry, but the whole idea of 'professions' is just snobbery. It's an idea dreamt up by the middle class to make their 'day jobs' sound more important. (There are clearly deep historical/economic roots to this arbitrary use of privileged titles within the division of labour, but that's for another time).

Of course law is a business, it can also help people too, but that is a universal situation. Nurses are not seen by many as professionals, but they also help people, put the patient first, and yes - they also do it to earn money. What's the difference? Lawyers are somehow better?

Most work involves doing something that helps others in some way, that's why people pay money for it. Law is a job like any other, and hence is a business too.

Lawyers, to use an American phrase, need to get over themselves and stop being so pompous and believing they are some kind of priesthood.

Cynic -08 Feb 2012 | 09:41

I don't believe in that definition of a profession. A profession is a trade you can't do, or a title you can’t call yourself, unless you pass a prescribed set of vocational qualifications.

Personally, I'd be pretty doubtful if any profession, let alone law, can that often stand up to the test of putting clients’ interests before their own.

Alex Novarese -08 Feb 2012 | 09:56

@ Antony

I agree with Alex on this. If you consider the position of lawyers that are proper partners, and those that are not, then your definition doesn't stand up. As an employee of a law firm there are many reasons outside the employee's control which relate to the firm and that impact on why a client's needs should not go above the needs of the individual lawyer (e.g. recruitment, retention practice/pay etc). Why (for example) should an employee cancel his holiday to better serve a client's needs where, but for partners making colleagues redundant, the firm would've been able to cope adequately? Presumably such an employee would not be a professional by your definition.

Ben10 -08 Feb 2012 | 10:16

Let's hear it for mutual self interest

Alex's thesis that the interests of clients and advisers are frequently opposed ignores the central importance of satisfaction for both law firms and their clients. The firm which makes a fast buck, leaving clients feeling ripped-off will struggle to gain repeat business, to cross sell, to become the client's trusted adviser or to turn the client into an advocate for the firm.

It is no excuse that firms are slaves to a competitive labour market. Time and again, surveys show that financial reward is not the primary motivating factor for lawyers. Job fulfilment, career prospects and a pleasant work environment all attract and help firms to retain staff.

I'm a huge advocate for firms developing more efficient practices so that they can lower their fees yet maintain their profitability. This is more easily done in partnership with clients not in opposition. Building mutually beneficial relationships is the name of the game. Who's for a group hug now?

Sally Dyson -08 Feb 2012 | 10:23

@ Sally

I don't agree. It is all about money. Fulfillment, career prospects and a pleasant work environment can all be priced. It is all about what you have to do/put up with and what the reward is in return. For (an albeit extreme) example, would you rather be paid £50k per annum for a fulfilling role in nice offices or be paid £10m per annum to work in 60s pre-aircon offices and feel like your role is a waste of time?

Ben10 -08 Feb 2012 | 11:04

Antony, my firm has in last 12 months or so taken to referring to itself in all internal publications as "the business", rather than "the firm". I can only assume this is a deliberate policy to try to change the way staff view the organisation. It might be true but it still grates every time I see it.

anon -08 Feb 2012 | 11:31

@Ben10

There's a lot I'd put up with for £10m per year but sadly no-one is offering that kind of incentive. How is a law firm to fund such a salary if it can't keep its clients happy?

Sally Dyson -08 Feb 2012 | 11:51

It's not whether there is tension, but how it's handled

There is no question that there are ways in which lawyer and client interests can be in tension with one another, especially when they approach fee negotiations as a haggle over rates. More for one comes at the others' expense. But as in any negotiation there are better and worse ways to go about it. For whatever reason, when they negotiate their fee arrangements, lawyers and clients seem to forget everything they know about creative problem-solving,which they otherwise apply in negotiating with counterparties in their transactions, disputes, etc.

Yes, clients have an interest in spending less - but there are many ways to spend less than just bargaining down the lawyer's rates or even capping their total fee. Yes, law firm partners have an interest in profitable practice, but there are many ways to achieve that other than keeping their rates up or running up hours. How they go about solving for their respective interests - considering not only different fee arrangements, but different ways to assign the right resources to the right tasks (including resources other than law firm associates), makes all the difference.

And in law, unlike perhaps in other trades referenced, trust between client and adviser is critical to the value of the service. If a client cannot trust counsel, the persuasiveness (and intrinsic value) of their advice is less. For a longer discussion, see my most recent posts at www.dannyertel.com

Danny Ertel -08 Feb 2012 | 16:49

@dannyertel

Hear Hear!

Sally Dyson -08 Feb 2012 | 21:08

Irrational Exceptionalism

@Danny Ertel -08 Feb 2012 | 16:49
'And in law, unlike perhaps in other trades referenced, trust between client and adviser is critical to the value of the service'

At face value that seems like a sensible statement, but if value is based on trust then this is a zero sum game. I.e. if you don't trust a lawyer then you are not not going to engage them, and hence their value is zero. You either trust or you do not.

But, this scenario is the same in all service industry sectors, from paying a mechanic to mend your brakes, to paying a private doctor to give you laser eye treatment. No trust, no service demanded.

Lawyers have got to get over this idea that they are exceptional in the market place. They are not, law is just another service, subject to all the same buyer/seller factors experienced elsewhere in the service sector.

Chuck -09 Feb 2012 | 09:10

The nature of the profession

@Danny

"when they negotiate their fee arrangements, lawyers and clients seem to forget everything they know about creative problem-solving"

What - lawyers (on both sides) losing a sense of commercial practicality? This reminds me of an anecdote a few years ago, when the small size of the pool of non-execs was high on the public agenda. At one of the talking shops that the City is so good at pulling together, a lawyer suggested that it would be a great idea to use more lawyers to broaden the talent pool. After all, they have such broad experience of business. The response, I'm sorry to say, was a stifled laugh from the rest of the room. Perhaps the Legal Service Act will help...

As to the idea that trust in a legal relationship is more important than in any other service industry, I have to second the above comment. Claims like that really need some evidence to back them up.

Cityboy -09 Feb 2012 | 16:04