Met’s false economy

  • Print
  • Comments (2)

Readers' comments (2)

  • 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

  • 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

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 (2)