Police force risks cutting quality of advice in wake of phone-hacking
Legal advisers have been stunned by the Metropolitan Police requesting rock-bottom hourly rates in its latest panel review, at a time when it faces an increasing chance of court action over its handling of the News International phone-hacking scandal.
The Met’s legal department is seeking rates of a maximum of £130 per hour from firms reappointed to its panel, prompting some to question the quality of service that the new legal roster will provide.
Tendering began last month, but some firms are understood to have withdrawn from the process, saying the low rates would make the work unprofitable.
A source close to the review process said the Met’s belt-tightening could leave it exposed to a lower quality of legal service just as the phone-hacking scandal ramps up.
“The Met has its own in-house legal department, but do they really want high street law firms advising them on phone-hacking matters? That’s who they’ll end up with if they request these sort of rates,” he said. “They’ll have to go off-panel to a magic circle firm for this kind of advice.”
The Met’s legal team comprises around 45 transactional lawyers. It last reviewed its panel in 2008, splitting it into different bands of expertise and practice areas, including property, employment and litigation.
Firms currently on the panel include Bircham Dyson Bell, Blake Lapthorn, Burges Salmon, Eversheds, TLT and Weightmans.
As part of the review process, the Met has requested that all firms’ bids include: hourly rates of £60-£80 for paralegals, legal executives, trainees, and solicitors with up to two years’ post-qualification experience (PQE); £80-£110 for solicitors or barristers with a minimum of two years’ PQE; and £110-£130 for solicitors or barristers with a minimum of six years’ PQE, including three years in the relevant category of work.
“The Metropolitan Police would normally be seen as a real trophy client, but I’d be surprised if many of the major public sector firms could make this work profitable,” a source said. “As public sector clients drive down the price of their work, the model of delivery that law firms have to come up with becomes more challenging. You have to look at the ratio of partners to more junior solicitors.”
Readers' comments (14)
Anonymous | 19-Jul-2011 9:51 am
As a buyer of legal services, I welcome competition in the marketplace.
The last twenty years have seen fees rise rapidly, PEP go through the roof and the quality of your average solicitor fall.
If you quote for my work, you don't get to come back at the end and ask for an extra 20%.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
The Buyer | 19-Jul-2011 11:12 am
How about partner's stop looking at continuously increasing their annual partner profits, take a look at the economic conditions and take a pay cut or go on one less exotic holiday every year. The days of lawyers milking the system are slowly coming to an end with eagle eyed legal buyers involved. Why do we have cost draftsman? Would it be because lawyers can’t be trusted....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
James | 20-Jul-2011 9:17 am
The reality is that in other parts of the country SME firms with very skilled lawyers who do not automatically meet the "big firm" persona are able and willing to take on these clients. Owing to their vastly reduced overheads they can still make a nice profit on the work. The average salary for a 3-4 PQE litigation solicitor in an SME in Bristol or Cardiff will be circa £30-£42k (see hays market rept), compare that to the likes of the big firms. Its probably about time that some bigger company's started to look further afield and took off the rose tinted specs that price always equals quality; a litigator by trade, I have had opponents who are both magic circle firms and trans-atlantic firms - and I really don't see what the fuss is about.
Just for the record legal aid rates o/s of London can vary between £40-£90 per hour dependent on case - therefore to a lot of firms a £110 an hour or more is a nice little earner thank you. very much.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 20-Jul-2011 11:16 am
Perhaps panel firms should charge the MET the same rate per hour that the MET allegedly charged News International for information....!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment