Magic circle hourly rates hit all-time high of £850

  • Print
  • Comments (20)

Readers' comments (20)

  • @ 12:57: Hear! Hear!

    @ 1:11 Should that be "pay slightly less" or "pay slyly less"? No one "know" what you mean!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Not for much longer! The myth that the "magic circle" are better hands down than the silver circle, upper mid tier, and specialist boutiques is utter nonsense, and the market is acutely aware of it, hence many of the aforementioned firms encroaching on what was historically MC terriotry. The MC need to perpetuate this myth, by keeping rates artificially high. After all they have a huge fixed cost base to meet, and expensive , generally underperforming overseas offices to support in their quest for global domination. I know for a fact, and often use it as leverage when considering top ten firms hourly rates, that one can without any hesitation, reduce 1/3rd of the headline rate , as a starting point. For the sheer audacity and the insult to my intelligence, I then trot of to firms like Macfarlanes, who quote a good rate, for outstanding lawyers, and levels of service led by partners, whose charges are still better value than the MC, and whos eservice levels are unsurprassed, coupled with their commercial nous. Wake up MC!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • How does it work at Slaughters, the most profitable of the MC firms? Do they even have hourly rates? I heard they just present a bill, entirely unitemised with no narrative which could have been arrived at on any basis with the client none the wiser.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • In my many years as a lawyer, in-house and in large and medium sized firms I have met brilliant lawyers in smaller firms and doughballs in MC/SC Firms. The truth is every Firm has its share of good, bad or indifferent lawyers, it's merely a question of ratios. The comments about in-house counsel "back-covering" are accurate in my experience, although there are other considerations such as specialty/expertise and resource. If I had a big concern about MC/SC Firms it was around how far down the chain work was delegated and how well it was supervised, particularly in view of the ludicrous hours they work their staff.

    Lastly, as is quite often the case, you sometimes pay for the name. Believe it or not, I remember an MD boasting how expensive his City lawyers were on an IPO. He thought it reflected on his own importance. In London, it appears inflated egos are like anuses - everyone has one .

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Well I've seen some bills from PI claimant "lawyers" who are 'charging' £268 per hour for unqualified and unadmitted staff; but they would reduce this to £240 'in the spirit of compromise' so I guess £850 ph isn't a ramp.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The fluctuations over the years show that the rates are determined by what the market will bear and not the value of the advice given.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It is these very few firms charging extortionate rates which give the rest of the profession who scratch around to make a living a bad name. I am a sole Practitioner yet my friends all believe I charge £300 per hour and take home circa 80% of this. The reality is, as with others, far from the accurate position. For me to achieve such lucrative earnings I would need to hold up a few MC firms before reciting another one of Jim Diamond's phrases "hi ho Silver" as I scarpered....

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • As a US firm partner, I have been sitting across the table from British/international firms for 15 years; and, in my opinion, there is a very significant difference between 'MC' partners and associates and their counterparts at 'SC', second-tier and third-tier firms, both in terms of professional knowledge, dedication and business sense.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • (cont.)

    There are, in fact, different leagues. Of course you will meet the occasional mediocre lawyer at a MC firm and the occasional outstanding lawyer at a less prestigious firm, but on average there is no question than MC firms. Same thing in the US in terms of the top 10 Wall Street firms and all the rest. If you have ever negotiated a deal with a firm like Skadden (to use a firm other than my own), you will know what I am talking about. And if I were to become a client / consumer of law firm services, I would definitely know that too.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • As a buyer of legal services, I take issue with the suggestion that it's our "ignorance and arrogance" that are the problem. As with any business decision, there are a number of different factors to weigh up. The idea that it doesn't matter because it's not "our" money is offensive to most of us who are acutely conscious of the need to bring value to the businesses that pay our salaries. We will often try to do as much as we can in-house, saving the company money, and only outsource the really specialised stuff. Accordingly, MC charge rates *are* a deterrent, but there are other considerations also:

    (1) I'd rather pay £850 p/h for succinct advice from someone at the top of their game than pay a third of that for blather from someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.
    (2) I don't want an associate learning on the job, who needs everything explained to them, to be charged as if they were giving partner-level advice. They aren't.
    (3) If I have a good relationship with the partner, and they have made the effort to get to know my business, that goes a very long way.
    (4) I don't care how senior or how experienced you are, or even how excellent your advice: if you patronise me because I'm a woman (and it still happens, sadly), you and your firm will never get my business again.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (20)