 |
| Michael K. E. Thiele |
Somewhere along the way, we increasingly focused our practice on personal injury cases and slowly away from the traditional areas of law such as real estate, family law, and general litigation. The reason for that shift ultimatley boils down to one factor and that is the affordability of legal services. While my partners and I were running a very lean practice and our costs were tightly controlled there was unavoidable over-head that kept pushing fees up at a rate that exceeded the public's ability to pay.
Plant Quinn Thiele LLP operated out of space in a lower class office tower near the Courthouse so that we could run over without delay or cost of parking etc.. We invested in the latest technology to promote efficiency and limited our staff to one superhuman receptionist/clerk/office manager (Thank you April L.), along with a part-time bookkeeper. We didn't invest in marble, fancy artwork, or exotic furnishing as typifies the large law firms as we heard from our clients that they didn't want to pay for that kind of environment. We (the partners) worked very long hours and did everything ourselves, thereby in the process learning the ins and outs of every aspect of litigation. In those days, we noted that it was impossible for any one of the three of us to ever come to the office 24/7, 365 days of the year without seeing at least one of the other partners during that attendance. The sense of dedication and committment to our team was thereby profound. When you are guaranteed to see another partner in the office (or know they were just there) whatever time you go to the office you know that you are working with people who are driven to succeed.
As a result of how we operated, we spent heavily from the capital of our relative youth. The rewards however were there and we were successful from day 1. We quickly paid out a start-up bank loan and committed to operating in the black without loans or dipping into an emergency line of credit. This we did for many many years. Running lean on expenses also meant that the hourly rates we charged could be lower as our revenue was not consumed by interest charges or other expenses.
Our clients have always been regular people and not large corporate entities. We actively sought to represent regular individuals, as opposed to larger clients as we never wanted to be beholden to any one client. For that reason we turned down retainers from larger corporations and insurers who would have consumed all of our time with their work. The idea that one client could break us, or make demands to which we could not afford to say no, was concerning to us and we actively sought to avoid that danger.
Being so close to "regular people" with legal problems it became increasingly apparent in the early 1990's that the ability of people to pay for traditional legal services was becoming more difficult. There has never been a shortage of clients just an increasing shortage of clients with sufficient income to afford going through the legal system with their matters. The profound expense of legal services is not an issue that has gone away, even today. We have clearly passed the tipping point of people stretching to afford legal services to them realizing that hiring a lawyer is just not an option. Out of necessity and a lack of alternatives, many more people are representing themselves today than ever before in litigation proceedings.
I do believe that there are many reasons why access to legal services and the dispute resolution mechanism of the Court system is out of reach of regular people. One of those reasons is that the law, in relation to the types of matters that concern regular folks, has become unduly complex. The increasing complexity is driven in part by bureaucratic regulation and also by lawyers' concerns over their professional liability. Rule books have gotten thicker, professional duties have become more complex, and administrative burdens have substantially increased from decades ago. Each of these changes, to be sure, was intended to improve the delivery of legal services. Unfortunately, what I see in the end is that all of these changes amount to a very expensive burden that is being passed on to clients.
In conversations with many senior (as in "old") lawyers about the number of trials that younger lawyers have today, as well as conversations with a few retired judges about young lawyers and their opportunity to go to trial, one can see that what once resulted in the efficient meting out of justice has slowed dramatically. The fact is that it is rare today for matters to go to trial and it is rare for trial work to be a regular part of a litigators practice. I've wondered why this is the case (it's as true in my office as it is in any other law office) and I've often recieved the answer that trials today are much more complicated and hence unduly expensive. There are more expert witnesses, more comprehensive disclosure of documentation, more paper, more process and more complicated evidence. Claims today, as fashioned by plaintiffs, are also more in that the heads of damages have been expanded to capture many different heads of damages--all of which have not always been typical claims. The "more" of course is relative to how it once was in Ontario. Whereas the very senior counsel today can recall doing more than 2 civil trials a week in their early law practices the idea of regularly doing two or more civil trials a week today is simply unfathomable. The reasons for why this is inconceivable partly explains why legal services today are so expensive.
That the lower end of the range of our clients couldn't afford to hire us and that we couldn't afford to be hired by them within their available budgets was terribly disconcerting. The affordability of pursuing a claim, or defending one, increasingly became the primary consideration in whether clients would engage in the legal system with the help of a lawyer. This change, frankly, took a lot of the satisfaction out of being a lawyer. Whether justice is pursued, whether claims are compromised or even abandoned, became less about the "justice" and more about affordability of continuing. The inability to afford the work that needs to be done to properly bring about the conclusion of a case on the "merits" is like asking a contractor to build a house with only half of the materials or for a surgeon to complete a surgery without all of his instruments.
THE CHANGE
The trend I noted above applied to all areas of the law. However, the area of personal injury law was a little bit different before becoming radically different. Prior to the advent of contingency fees, lawyers would often undertake personal injury cases using "result billing" as the basis for their accounts. Fees would be deferred so that the work could be done, and if successful, the fees would be paid from the winnings with an added charge for the result. If there was no success then often the fees would be waived, or only disbursements charged, as it would be apparent that the client could not afford to pay. The problem with the result billing manner of proceeding was that it operated in a bit of a gray area. It is only with the advent of contingency fees in Ontario that the law clearly allowed a lawyer to work and charge based on "results".
Contingency fees, in my view, were akin to a quiet revolution in the practice of law. All of the problems that prospective clients were facing in affording legal fees were done away with in the context of cases that could be pursued on a contingent fee basis. Contingency fee agreements allow clients to access the law and the full dispute resolution mechanisms of the Court because they are not required to pay fees on an ongoing basis. Where retainer agreements are based on contingency fees, the financial risk of a file shifts from the client to to the lawyer. The lawyer only gets paid if there is success in the file. Further, in true contingency fee matters, the lawyers will also assume the cost of funding disbursements including everything from stamps to expert medical reports.
QUINN THIELE MINEAULT GRODZKI LLP
In 2010, Plant Quinn Thiele LLP, admitted new partners (Mineault & Grodzki), and the firm made a serious committment to restricting its practice to only personal injury work. Personal injury work is particularly well suited to contingency fee work as the goal of the litigation is compensation. This work was attractive to us as the unfortunate conversation about "affording" legal services is a conversation that we now rarely have with a client. The focus in a personal injury action today is simply on the merits of the case and not on whether a client can afford to pursue it.
Since 2001, we have handled hundreds of personal injury actions and the awards that our clients have received reach into the multi-tens of millions of dollars. While the awards we win don't restore the health that has been lost; it certainly is true that the compensation we get for our clients makes their lives significantly better.
THE FUTURE
At QTMG LLP today we continue to take on new personal injury lawyers and we seek out clients who are in need of help in relation to their personal injury claims. Ability to pay legal fees is not a factor as we carry all litigation from beginning to end. Further, we have invested in our ability to carry disbursements and have even made arrangements with various funding organizations to have money loaned to our clients pending resolution of the claims. Relieving financial stress, as soon as possible, is an effective way to ensure that a client will pursue a claim until it is fairly resolved.
I hope the foregoing gives you some insight on Quinn Thiele Mineault Grodzki LLP, where we come from, and why we do what we do. The lawyers here are passionate about helping regular people get the compensation they deserve. If you, or someone you know needs our help, please give us a call or email. There is no charge to talk and we would be pleased to get you the information you need.
Michael K. E. Thiele
Quinn Thiele Mineault Grodzki LLP
www.ottawalawyers.com
mthiele@pqtlaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment