Categories:Personal Injury

Rival to QualitySolicitors targets corner shops and high street firms

  • Print
  • Comments (19)

Readers' comments (19)

  • I thought SurNigel's Lawvest were the natural rival of Quality Solicitors.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • How much??!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Am I the only one to find this sort of crap so deeply depressing?
    No normal `High Street firm' would contemplate spending anything like that amount on advertising.
    The absurd comment that it compares favourably with the average referral fee of £800 assumes that most solicitors pay referral fees, which they don't.
    Even for those sad firms that have to pay referral fees I can't believe that £800 is anywhere near typical in, for example conveyancing, as this would be far more than they would be charging for actually doing the job. I know fees of several hundred quid are sometimes payable in PI cases, but that’s at least being paid for an introduction to someone with a definite claim, not just the average doleite buying fags.
    Any firm that's stupid enough to sign up is making a conscious decision to spend money on advertising rather than doing the job itself. A good firm does not need to advertise. Word of mouth is still, and will always be the best source of new clients.
    Most clients who select their solicitor on the basis of an ad they see while buying their 20 Pall Mall are frankly not worth having. All they will care about is how cheaply the job can be done.
    I sincerely hope this ridiculous scheme disappears without trace.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Paying £80k a year to secure the odd extra will is economic suicide. The only people who will benefit from this are the middle men, assuming there are enough law firms stupid enough to sign up.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This has all the hallmarks of the prfession hitting rock-bottom. Whatever will be next - free £500 legal advice with every jumper bought from Primark? With regards the remark in the article that the marketing fee compares favourably with the average referral fee of £800 are they not aware that, following the recent consultation on fixed costs for most RTA cases, referral fees will completely disappear due to the costs recoverability falling out of such cases. Cost seems completely unrealistic and only for the ultra desperate firms out there right at the bottom of the food chain.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Some of you are so delusional it is funny.
    Word of mouth is not going to save your practice, with the advent of Co-op, Quality Solicitors and others you need to find a way to market yourselves properly and not just hope that business will drop in your lap.
    Firms that wait for work will find that they eventually cease to exists because they refuse to change.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @ are you serious
    You really don't get it, do you? You have to understand that the nature of a professional relationship is quite different from that of a retail relationship.
    My clients - and the clients of many similar firms - don't come to me because I'm cheap, which I'm not. They come to me because they have confidence that I understand their needs, that I will do the job well, that we enjoy a good personal relationship and because they basically like doing business with me.

    Cost is not a significant issue for these clients, and even if I managed to alienate them completely they would choose another firm by recommendation from their peers. They would not dream of selecting a firm that advertised in the local fag shop.

    In fact, for a firm to advertise in those surroundings is effectively to make a statement that they (a) aren’t good enough to attract clients by word of mouth; and (b) that they only want clients who shop in such places and don’t know anyone who can recommend a solicitor.

    Like it or not, there is a snob value attached to the purchase of professional services just as there is with the purchase of goods from a shop. Many clients of good firms would not want to be associated with the clients who went to firms that advertise like this - any more than they would want to be seen shopping in the Co-Op or Iceland.

    You're quite right that for some poor quality firms this may be the only way they can hope to get business. It won’t work, but for the rest of us this new scheme may be actually helpful, in that by being persuaded to part with what little cash they have their demise will be hastened. And that can only be good for the profession as a whole.

    In fact, the more I think about it I'm beginning to wonder whether this isn't a clever ruse by the Law Society to drive bad firms out of business ...

    No, on second thoughts, that attributes far too much intelligence and business acumen to them!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I think I might start a marketing scheme up and charge client law firms... *plucks figure randomly from the air* £48,500. That will save you £19,000 and we'll win your little High St practice clients on Mars. Yes Mars. That's the growth market of the 22nd century...!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Does anybody want to join me on my new venture? Sandwich Board Solicitors!!... you supply your own sandwich board and I'll franchise you a few streets that you can walk on.... £5k a month should do it. Do you need a deal on a couple of sheets of plywood?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @rural bliss you have hit the nail on the head.
    @ are you serious Clearly posted by QS (Quality Streets) or League of Gentlemen ( we need local lawyers for local people ). ...*wagering all that I will not have to eat my hat*
    Wrong end of market....

    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 (19)