Too Many Lawyers, Too Little Work: More Layoffs Are Likely, Expert Says

B. McLeod
Apr 29, 2009 8:09 PM CST

I do not think I would want a job title like “client head.”  However, I do respect careful, conservative predictions.  In early March, when I predicted March layoffs would exceed January and February totals combined, that was a wild and chancy call (though it proved to be right).  Likewise, early this month, when I predicted April layoff totals would be substantially down from March, that was an optimistic shot (but right again).  Now, though, you take DiPietro, the expert “client head,” and he’s a lot more conservative.  “More law firm layoffs are likely, DiPietro predicts.”  That’s at least two, right?  Two layoffs (in an undefined, wide open time period), and he’s nailed it!  He IS an expert!!  And, he has some recommendations, too: “consider alternatives to charging clients on a billable-hours basis and tie associate pay to job performance.”  I am in awe, really.  Those seem so clearly astute, why has nobody else thought of them before now??  I find myself compelled to ask, “is there somewhere I can send some of my money, so that DiPietro, the expert “client head,” will give me some useful predictions and tips too?

Flag this comment

B. McLeod
Apr 30, 2009 10:22 AM CST

“I have nothing more to say to you…it’s not like you have enough of a clue to understand.” (“Barrister” post to B. McLeod, 16 April).

Unfortunately, “Barrister” is apparently has little regard for keeping its word.  Not surprising given its ongoing, lawyer impersonation attempt on this site.

In another of “Barrister’s” posts today, “Barrister” revealed a complete lack of knowledge of federal court registrations.  How many real lawyers would not know that lawyers are separately admitted in state and federal courts?

Flag this comment

B. McLeod
Apr 30, 2009 12:00 PM CST

Here’s the exchange at issue (relating to FEDERAL practice):
______________________________________
Posted by Barrister - 4 hours, 55 minutes ago

I have a solution for you B. McLeod…expand your unauthorized practice of law beyond pretending to have a JD on this message board, take a federal case under your “pseud” and they’ll be more than willing to turn over every milk crate of newspaper clippings (oops, client files) you have.

Posted by B. McLeod - 4 hours, 24 minutes ago

No, I think they would just look at my current federal registration card (good ‘til June 30) and tell me to do my own work.

Posted by Barrister - 2 hours, 3 minutes ago

Federal registration card? Is that anything like an ACTUAL license to practice law? (states regulate their OWN bar membership and grant said license to successful candidates)
______________________________________

It is too clear that “Barrister” was ignorant of federal registration, simply.

Flag this comment

B. McLeod
Apr 30, 2009 12:32 PM CST

We’ll see.  I would think whoever really owns the computer facilities you are using would be concerned over your use of their facilities to nationally publish allegations (without evidence) that a specific, named ABA member is criminally practicing law without a license.  If you would, just print this thread off and hand it to them as my request that they take the necessary steps to preserve the electronic information on their servers related to your use of their system.

Flag this comment

B. McLeod
Apr 30, 2009 10:11 PM CST

Is it not the case, however, that in addition to showing the Ohio license, you still have to apply for federal admission in fact need two federally-admitted sponsors for your application, whether you are in US District Court for the Northern or Southern District of Ohio, the main difference between the two being the format of the application form and the fact that the fee for admission is $10 higher (i.e., $200 rather than $190) in one of them?

Flag this comment

Rick Fein
Apr 30, 2009 11:12 PM CST

One more thing.  I think clients are now more attuned to the fact that lawyers have been getting away for years with the widely accepted use of “rounding up.”  For example, a one minute email is billed at a minimum of 6 minutes, or in some cases 10, or even 15 minutes.  So, let’s say you are a $400 an hour attorney, and you bill $40 for 6 minutes of work that actually took only 1 minute.  You have now transformed yourself into a $2,400 an hour attorney.  I know this is accepted practice but whether it is hurting the legal community or not is another issue.

Flag this comment

Rick Fein
May 1, 2009 2:41 PM CST

It’s not greed, it’s simply the way business has been conducted.  If you want to accuse every single lawyer in the country of “greed” then go ahead.  But I think in this day and age,. there’s no real reason why clients cannot be billed for actual time spent, down to the minute, or even the second.  If $400 an hour is not good enough for the attorney, then raise the fees, but don’t manipulate the bill to try to show you’ve worked more than the actual time you spent.

Flag this comment