I am not sure I understand the widespread view that attorneys, unlike other business people, are out of line for charging money for our services. It's not that we don't overcharge sometimes, in fact, I am writing a paper on this in the class action context. But you'd expect to pay the plumber, the electrician, your hairdresser or barber, your accountant, your broker. Why the bitching and moaning about lawyers?
Maybe it's because what we do is write things and talk, and that doesn't look like work? I actually have a friend, a colleague from my days as a philosophy prof, who once actually asked me in all seriousness, But this but be pretty dull after philosophy, after all, all you do is look things up, right?
Or maybe it's because of the myth that we deliberately make simple things hard so we can benefit by the confusion? However, we don't write laws. Legislatures write laws -- some of them are lawyers, but they're not, in fact notably sympathetic to the profession. The new edition of American Lawyer has an article about how legislative tort reform has basically ended the era of litigation of mass torts. Besides, even with the best will in the world, it's really hard to right nice, simple, unambiguous rules that clearly give fair answers in most situations. You try it sometime. Any rule requires interpretation and extension, and that's what we do.
Maybe it is because so many of us, at least high profile lawyers of the big firm sort I used to be (granted I was never high profile) serve the interests of the rich and powerful. But how does that set us apart from most people in most professions? And most lawyers, of course, do not fall into those classification, but toil in the trenches for $60,000-$90,000 a year, the high end being marginally comfortable but hardly the wealth of Midas.
In addition, we are one of the few professions whose ethical canons urge that we _do_ work for free on behalf of the indigent and underprivileged, and lots of us do pro bono work. I spent a good deal of the last two days on such a matter, and I suppose I could find out from my records how many hours I have "billed" over my years of practice pro bono, but I would estimate of the 2200 +/- average hours a year I billed while in practice, a good quarter of those were pro bono. I was on the high end, but how many accountants, hairdressers, plumbers, etc., do the like as part of their professional obligations?
When it comes to soaking the _rich_, as here, why TF not? They can afford it.
--- Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
> New York Times - December 5, 2006
>
<http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/05/nyregion/05astor.html?
>
>
_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1165332757-1+sYrMrVKessAcVePsU+ng&oref=slogin>
>
> In Aftermath of the Astor Case, How the Final Fees
> Piled Up
> By SERGE F. KOVALESKI
>
> The legal drama over the health care and finances of
> Brooke Astor,
> New York's legendary socialite and philanthropist,
> played out for
> nearly three months amid allegations and
> recriminations of financial
> duplicity, greed and outright forgery.
>
> The case against her son, Anthony D. Marshall, came
> to a halt on Oct.
> 13 when the parties in the feud reached a
> settlement, averting what
> could have been an expensive and sensational trial
> scheduled to begin
> less than a week later.
>
> But everything comes with a price. In the seven
> weeks since the
> agreement, those involved in the case have filed
> bills with Justice
> John E. H. Stackhouse of State Supreme Court in
> Manhattan for fees
> totaling about $3 million for the services of 56
> lawyers, 65 legal
> assistants, 6 accountants, 5 bankers, 6 doctors, 2
> public relations
> firms and a law school professor. Under state law,
> such payments
> would come out of Mrs. Astor's assets, valued at
> over $120 million.
>
> But yesterday, Justice Stackhouse issued an order
> that approved a
> smaller amount, $2.22 million, calling the original
> figure
> "staggering" and saying that some charges were for
> work that was not
> in the best interest of Mrs. Astor, who is 104. The
> justice denied
> payments for the public relations firms, the time
> lawyers spent
> talking with reporters and the hours logged
> preparing the fee
> applications themselves.
>
> The largest fee of nearly $1.08 million went to J.
> P. Morgan Chase,
> which was named permanent guardian of Mrs. Astor's
> assets as part of
> the settlement, less than the $1.24 million that the
> bank requested.
> The other guardian in the case, Annette de la Renta,
> the wife of the
> designer Oscar de la Renta, requested no
> compensation for herself or
> the law firm that represented her.
>
> "She felt that the right thing to do was to pay all
> her own
> attorneys' fees and that it was not fair to charge
> that to her
> friend's estate since she volunteered to step up as
> guardian," said
> Fraser P. Seitel, a spokesman for Ms. de la Renta.
> Mr. Seitel's
> business was one of the public relations firms
> denied payment by the
> justice.
>
> The case began on July 20, when one of Mr.
> Marshall's sons, Philip
> Marshall, filed a legal petition that accused his
> father of
> neglecting the care of Mrs. Astor while trying to
> enrich himself with
> her fortune. Under the October settlement, Anthony
> Marshall, 82, gave
> up his role as steward of his mother's finances and
> was required,
> along with his wife, Charlene, to relinquish his
> position as co-
> executor of Mrs. Astor's estate. As part of the
> agreement, Mr.
> Marshall admitted no wrongdoing.
>
> Justice Stackhouse said he felt Mr. Marshall should
> be awarded half
> of his legal fees. "I make this ruling based on the
> conclusion of the
> court evaluator that the allegations in the petition
> regarding Mrs.
> Astor's medical and dental care, and other
> allegations of intentional
> elder abuse by the Marshalls, were not
> substantiated," he wrote in
> his ruling.
>
> Ira Salzman, whose firm represented Philip Marshall
> and was awarded
> $356,512 of the $365,572 in fees it requested, said
> in a statement
> that payments to Mr. Seitel, who did work for his
> client, would be
> honored through other means.
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________________________________________ Cheap talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. http://voice.yahoo.com