Acumen+giving+you+the+edge

Met’s false economy

18 July 2011 | By Margaret Taylor

  • Print
  • Comments (2)

Related Articles

You can just imagine the uproar if the Metropolitan Police had assembled a legal panel littered with the City’s elite.

The News of the World may be gone, but there’s still plenty of scope for media scrutiny.

And with accusations abounding regarding what the Met knew and when - not to mention what it may or may not have paid for that knowledge - you can’t blame the force for taking a canny approach to its panel review.

But in this case it seems the Met may have priced itself out of the legal market - in the wrong ­direction - at a time when the fallout from the phone hacking scandal means it needs more legal clout than ever.

Whether or not the Met will face court action itself, the fact it is so tied up with the goings-on in Wapping means it will certainly have some very tricky questions to answer - and not just in one ­sitting. As things stand it would have little ­choice but to ask a high street firm to help it through this.

Perhaps it’s unfair to assume that no high street firm would be up to the job, but with the small ­matter of an 11,000-page Glenn Mulcaire ­document to review for starters, few would have the manpower.

Which is why so many of the force’s current advisers are bemused by the terms of the tender, with one branding the demand for a ceiling rate of £130 per hour “nonsense”.

For many firms the Met is seen as a trophy client, but every prize has its price. With both public and private sector clients squeezing the life out of ­advisory rates over the past few years, there comes a point at which firms have to walk away. Running a zero-profit business brings ignominy of its own, after all.

Of course, nobody is saying the Met has a right to the ­priciest lawyers in town, especially as many of the cases it might be involved with could be brought on a shoestring budget. But when it comes to defending itself against allegations of ­unprofessionalism on an epic scale, even a publicly funded body should be allowed the choice of a reassuringly expensive adviser.

Anything less would be scandalous.

See all Related Jobs, Briefings & CPD/Events

Readers' comments (2)

  • Chris | 19-Jul-2011 9:21 am

    It always amazes me the number of condescending articles the lawyer comes out with indirectly making the assumption that the small / medium firm will not be in a position to advise such a big public entity. Its a load of twaddle - A quick look at the legal 500 will show that there are dedicated teams of experts outside of London in small or medium sized firms who are regularly involved in big ticket work and do it for a fee far cheaper than their London counter parts. Perhaps the Met's decision may start a uprising, only time will tell - but any lawyer at the mid or lower level already knows that hourly rates are on the decline or being replaced by fixed fees or predictive costs; it was only a matter of time before bigger clients started to twist the knife. The dates of maximising hourly charges per day are coming to an end and being replaced by a drive for efficiency and fixed fees. It may also explain why a lot of the firms in Bristol and Cardiff seem to be picking up some very good clients

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous | 19-Jul-2011 5:29 pm

    This is not process work. This is highly skilled commoditised work that takes a lot of experience to be able to advise on.
    The issues facing the Met are not issues that S/M firms deal with on a regular basis and involve huge amounts of regulatory and historical knowledge to even start to advise on . The furore surrounding the NI scandal means the Met will be facing huge legal issues over the coming years and will need top quality advice. Top quality advice does not come at £110 per hour at partner level - as it the bottom of the bracket for this tender. Bear in mind, the £110 - 130 is for 6 years plus. The rates for 2 -6 years are about £80 and there is no way the Met are going to react well to you lumping all the work on a 2 year PQE to make the contract pay as they know they don't have the experience to do the work to the required standard.
    There is no chance we could turn anything other than a loss by allocating partners to work at £110 an hour. If you pull partners off higher value work to work at £110 it's a double loss. You're servicing a high profile client for less than nothing but losing out on high rate paying work as well.
    I understand they have to cut costs (believe me, I know all about it), but this is misconceived as it is not sustainable for both parties. Look at Southern Cross and look at the Immigration Advisory Service. This is what happens when you take on loss making work.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

  • Print
  • Comments (2)

Most popular

Most commented

Most emailed