Free Divorces for Valentine’s Day
You’ll want to go over to David Giacalone’s f/k/a and read this post about presumably solo attorney Brad Margolis’ (no other attorneys are listed at his website) marketing stunt giving away a free divorce for Valentine’s Day. The news story that David links contains some discussion over whether the contest is tasteless. David, however, takes issue with it for another reason: Margolis represented that the value of the free divorce (uncontested, with no custody or property disputes) is roughly $1000 but his website offers an uncontested divorce for $375. David further notes that Margolis does not mention that most people can easily obtain an uncontested divorce pro se using forms available from the court, thus further diminishing the value of the offered prize.
So far, I’m in agreement with this position. But where I take issue is when David goes on to criticize Margolis’ flat $375 dollar fee (costs not included, which according to the news story are @ $390) [as excessive:] Editor’s correction: note that David does NOT say that a $375 flat fee is excessive. This is his full quote below and my revised commentary thereafter:
drawing down a retainer) is $158.00 per hour. [That rate will sound low to many readers,Margolis’ divorce fee agreement states that his hourly fee (for purposes of but recall that Margolis practices in central NYS, where lawyer income, like the whole economy, is depressed.] At that hourly rate, Margolis would be paid for about 2.4 hours under the $375 flat fee — a generous allotment of time.
Personally, I really don’t think that 2.4 hours to prepare a form is overly excessive reasonable. First, you’ve got to meet with and interview the client to explain the process. I’m guessing that could take at least a half hour to three quarters of an hour (it should, anyway!). Then, you’ve got to open a file on the client, run a conflicts check and review the documents to make sure that a simple uncontested divorce will work for the case. Then, there’s the matter of filling in the information, proofing it and possibly running it by the client for review. And yes, maybe there’s a bit of premium built in above the $158/an hour, but I don’t find that unreasonable. It’s because of Margolis’ expertise that he can offer the flat rate. Isn’t that better than say a junior attorney charging $100 an hour but taking five hours to complete the petition?
As David points out, clients have a choice here as well. They can learn about how to file a pro se divorce and figure out how to do so. For a $10.00/hr hourly wage earners who have little in the way of savings or disposable income, it’s probably worth it to miss a few hours of work to go down to the court to seek pro se assistance and spend a few more hours at night or on the weekend filling out the form. For someone making $50/hr, the convenience of being able to delegate the work to someone else for $375 is worth the cost. I know that there are many things that my husband or I can do ourselves around the house – yardwork or weekly housecleaning – that would be less costly than hiring others for those tasks. In fact, I don’t really mind those tasks so much, but truth is, I’d rather spend what little spare time I have with my daughters. My point is that just because pro se divorces can be obtained free, doesn’t mean that everyone will necessarily want to avail themselves of that option.
I support any individual’s right to handle a matter pro se. And in some cases, it’s an economic necessity to have this right available. But I’m wondering whether any group like HALT has anyone ever run the numbers on how long it takes a non-lawyer to prepare a legal document on their own, be it a do-it-yourself will or divorce. It’s hard to compare the costs of a flat fee divorce versus an individual without knowing how much of their time is involved, since everyone’s time has value.
Thanks for the pointer, Carolyn. I just want to note that I said 2.4 hours was “generous” (not overly generous) and I never said — and do not believe — that $375 is excessive for competent handling of an uncontested divorce. Like you, I hope that the lawyer would spend a good amount of time interviewing the client and overseeing the creation and execution of the necessary documents. (Including, proofreading.)
Thanks for the pointer, Carolyn. I just want to note that I said 2.4 hours was “generous” (not overly generous) and I never said — and do not believe — that $375 is excessive for competent handling of an uncontested divorce. Like you, I hope that the lawyer would spend a good amount of time interviewing the client and overseeing the creation and execution of the necessary documents. (Including, proofreading.)
I don’t understand why people take issue with lawyer who are trying to earn a living. People can do their own taxes too, but does that mean H&R Block should push people out the door and direct them to their local library to pick up forms and do them on their own? People can express whatever opinions they want on their blog, you’d just hope they’d be informed and balanced opinions.
I don’t understand why people take issue with lawyer who are trying to earn a living. People can do their own taxes too, but does that mean H&R Block should push people out the door and direct them to their local library to pick up forms and do them on their own? People can express whatever opinions they want on their blog, you’d just hope they’d be informed and balanced opinions.
Dear prior anonymous Commentor: Unlike H&R block, and most other sellers of products and services, lawyers have fiduciary duties toward their clients. [If you’re a lawyer and don’t know what that means, please go here or here, or to the “informed and balanced” source of your choice.]
Lawyers also proudly boast that they always put the client’s interests first. I assume, at the least, that this maxim applies when the lawyer is advising the client on alternative ways to address the client’s needs.
Are you suggesting that fiducial rights and priority status for clients exist except when they might reduce the lawyer’s income?. Isn’t that special. informed, balanced and objective, too.
Dear prior anonymous Commentor: Unlike H&R block, and most other sellers of products and services, lawyers have fiduciary duties toward their clients. [If you’re a lawyer and don’t know what that means, please go here or here, or to the “informed and balanced” source of your choice.]
Lawyers also proudly boast that they always put the client’s interests first. I assume, at the least, that this maxim applies when the lawyer is advising the client on alternative ways to address the client’s needs.
Are you suggesting that fiducial rights and priority status for clients exist except when they might reduce the lawyer’s income?. Isn’t that special. informed, balanced and objective, too.
David
Lets say you are a lawyer and you charge $375 for a divorce, but you know the guy down the road charges $330. I presume your view is that you should tell your client someone else can do it cheaper.
Now, can you also tell that client that (in your view) the guy down the road is really hard to get on the phone, or is a pain in the neck or stuffs up about 1 in 300 of his applications or is known to sometimes drink a lot at lunch? Hence, while he is cheaper, the client may well be better off spending a bit more and staying with you.
Or is the ‘fiduciary relationship’ limited to discussing $$?
Can I also ask – a fiduciary can act in their own self interest if disclosed to the principal (client, in this case). If a lawyer says in his letter of retainer “you will be charged $375 for this divorce, but you are entitled to do the divorce yourself or to use another lawyer who may or may not be cheaper”, does that meet your test?
ps: I know I could post on David’s blog but the relevant point isnt current. so thanks to Carolyn.
David
Lets say you are a lawyer and you charge $375 for a divorce, but you know the guy down the road charges $330. I presume your view is that you should tell your client someone else can do it cheaper.
Now, can you also tell that client that (in your view) the guy down the road is really hard to get on the phone, or is a pain in the neck or stuffs up about 1 in 300 of his applications or is known to sometimes drink a lot at lunch? Hence, while he is cheaper, the client may well be better off spending a bit more and staying with you.
Or is the ‘fiduciary relationship’ limited to discussing $$?
Can I also ask – a fiduciary can act in their own self interest if disclosed to the principal (client, in this case). If a lawyer says in his letter of retainer “you will be charged $375 for this divorce, but you are entitled to do the divorce yourself or to use another lawyer who may or may not be cheaper”, does that meet your test?
ps: I know I could post on David’s blog but the relevant point isnt current. so thanks to Carolyn.
Representing an uncontested divorce as a $1000 value is misleading, but $375 is not excessive for a uncontested divorce. I charge slightly less but that is mainly because there are several low-cost providers in my town. When it is clear that a potential client is price-shopping, I tell them that I am not the cheapest lawyer in town but not the most expensive either. I don’t have a mental list of everyone who is cheaper.
There is a growing number of pro se divorce filers in my town. I hesitate to recommend that clients go that route, because they sometimes do not pay attention to details such as service of process. Also sometimes a judge will get cranky and deny the divorce if the client does not follow the script. It is not accurate to say that a person can easily obtain a pro se divorce using forms provided by the court. Courts in North Carolina do not provide fill-in-the blank forms for a divorce complaint and the party will have to prepare a judgment for the judge’s signature.
Finally, not long ago I concluded that with a few exceptions it is not economical for me to take on a matter if it is not going to generate a fee of $750. So even though my hourly rate is $175, I am not likely to take on a case (except for traffic, divorce and few others) if the final fee will be less than that.
Representing an uncontested divorce as a $1000 value is misleading, but $375 is not excessive for a uncontested divorce. I charge slightly less but that is mainly because there are several low-cost providers in my town. When it is clear that a potential client is price-shopping, I tell them that I am not the cheapest lawyer in town but not the most expensive either. I don’t have a mental list of everyone who is cheaper.
There is a growing number of pro se divorce filers in my town. I hesitate to recommend that clients go that route, because they sometimes do not pay attention to details such as service of process. Also sometimes a judge will get cranky and deny the divorce if the client does not follow the script. It is not accurate to say that a person can easily obtain a pro se divorce using forms provided by the court. Courts in North Carolina do not provide fill-in-the blank forms for a divorce complaint and the party will have to prepare a judgment for the judge’s signature.
Finally, not long ago I concluded that with a few exceptions it is not economical for me to take on a matter if it is not going to generate a fee of $750. So even though my hourly rate is $175, I am not likely to take on a case (except for traffic, divorce and few others) if the final fee will be less than that.
David,
Here’s the anonymous poster. Actually, I’m well aware of the fiduciary duties of lawyers. Please don’t assume H&R Block is under no fiduciary duties to their clients, I’m sure they’d be quite offended.
People should be aware that a lawyer’s ethical obligations are laid out, in quite extensive and painstaking detail, in the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, and their individual state’s Rules of Professional Conduct. Here in California, we also have a Business and Professions Code. Finally, there is the Model Code of Professional Conduct, which is fast slipping into oblivion.
I see nowhere an ethical requirement that a lawyer recommend pro se representation to their clients as part of their fiduciary, or otherwise ethical, duty. If that’s good enough for the various bar committees, I suppose that’s good enough for me (and most other lawyers who earn a living). If you can point out the relevant ethics provision, be my guest.
Let’s keep in mind that lawyers are not public servants. They’re entrepreneurs who must appreciate the special moral duties raised by the type of special services they provide. Lawyers have the power to abuse and destroy their client’s property and lives, in a manner analogous to the power doctors have over their patient’s very life and death. But lawyers (and … yes, even doctors) have to eat too. I don’t think lawyers are under, nor should they be under, any ethical duty to affirmatively recommend pro se representation to their clients.
When’s the last time a doctor told you to try taking out your own appendix because it’s cheaper. And please don’t tell me legal service is something any joe schmoe can do, that really demeans our value. I couldn’t in good conscience recommend pro se representation to too many people on anything more complicated than arguing a traffic ticket in traffic court. That, I believe, is where lawyers’ ethical duties lie.
David,
Here’s the anonymous poster. Actually, I’m well aware of the fiduciary duties of lawyers. Please don’t assume H&R Block is under no fiduciary duties to their clients, I’m sure they’d be quite offended.
People should be aware that a lawyer’s ethical obligations are laid out, in quite extensive and painstaking detail, in the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, and their individual state’s Rules of Professional Conduct. Here in California, we also have a Business and Professions Code. Finally, there is the Model Code of Professional Conduct, which is fast slipping into oblivion.
I see nowhere an ethical requirement that a lawyer recommend pro se representation to their clients as part of their fiduciary, or otherwise ethical, duty. If that’s good enough for the various bar committees, I suppose that’s good enough for me (and most other lawyers who earn a living). If you can point out the relevant ethics provision, be my guest.
Let’s keep in mind that lawyers are not public servants. They’re entrepreneurs who must appreciate the special moral duties raised by the type of special services they provide. Lawyers have the power to abuse and destroy their client’s property and lives, in a manner analogous to the power doctors have over their patient’s very life and death. But lawyers (and … yes, even doctors) have to eat too. I don’t think lawyers are under, nor should they be under, any ethical duty to affirmatively recommend pro se representation to their clients.
When’s the last time a doctor told you to try taking out your own appendix because it’s cheaper. And please don’t tell me legal service is something any joe schmoe can do, that really demeans our value. I couldn’t in good conscience recommend pro se representation to too many people on anything more complicated than arguing a traffic ticket in traffic court. That, I believe, is where lawyers’ ethical duties lie.
One more thing, David, you should be aware that under the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer may request “Permissive Withdrawal” from representation of the client when, among other things, their client becomes a financial burden on the lawyer. Who says the bar committees aren’t practical?
Lawyers have duties of loyalty, confidentiality, competence and fiduciary responsibility to their clients, but they’re also in business to make a buck.
Lawyers AND clients should be aware of that very important fact. Otherwise, someone is liable to get hurt.
One more thing, David, you should be aware that under the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer may request “Permissive Withdrawal” from representation of the client when, among other things, their client becomes a financial burden on the lawyer. Who says the bar committees aren’t practical?
Lawyers have duties of loyalty, confidentiality, competence and fiduciary responsibility to their clients, but they’re also in business to make a buck.
Lawyers AND clients should be aware of that very important fact. Otherwise, someone is liable to get hurt.
Carolyn, I wish you would change this post to take out the incorrect statement that I believe $375 is excessive for an uncontested divorce. As I e-mailed you right after you wrote this, and I explained in my Comment 70 minutes after you posted it, I did not say and do not believe $375 is excessive. My views are unpopular enough with lawyers, without making me look like Mr. Scrooge.
Carolyn, I wish you would change this post to take out the incorrect statement that I believe $375 is excessive for an uncontested divorce. As I e-mailed you right after you wrote this, and I explained in my Comment 70 minutes after you posted it, I did not say and do not believe $375 is excessive. My views are unpopular enough with lawyers, without making me look like Mr. Scrooge.
Eugene, Thank you for decloaking and responding at length. I have no doubt that you sincerely want to fulfill all professional obligations, but I think that you — like virtually all lawyers — may have a blind eye or deaf ear concerning fiduciary duties, when fees are involved or when advising clients about alternatives other than those offered by the lawyer himself or herself. Imagine a client came to you complaining about another fiduciary who holds himself out as an advisor or counselor, and said:
What would your response be, if the other fiduciary was anyone other than a lawyer? What would it be if a financial advisor only suggested buying stock in his own company?
You assert that lawyers have very detailed ethical rules, but (1) like many observers, I believe that lawyer ethical Rules or Codes are in fact lowest common denominator prescriptions, made by a guild to protect the members’ interests, especially to avert outside regulation; (2) the Codes do almost no delineation of fiduciary duties; (3) (after trying to quickly reserach your jurisdiciton today, it appears to me that) neither the California Rules of Professional Conduct, nor the California State Bar Act have anything to say about the scope of advice required by lawyers when telling clients of options available to them; and the California Rule 4-200 on Fees, is on its face the weakest in the nation (banning only fees that are “illegal or unconscionable”) — clearly far less than the standards required of a lawyer as fiduciary. However, the California rules specify that they are not exclusive and should be read in light of the rules and opinions of courts and ethics authorities, inside and outside the states.
My position is clearly not that of bar associations and bar counsel, and lawyers don’t like me betraying guild secrets. Mine is, however, a position that follows from the fundamental meaning of what a couselor-at-law and a lawyer-fiduciary owes the client — especially when they claim to uphold the highest standards and to put the client’s interests first. When it comes to a possible loss of business or fees, those claims ring hollow. For example, in my article Pricey Contingency Fees, I point out that the bar (even ATLA) repeatedly says that contingency fee percentages must be based on an assessment of the risk involved, but nonetheless never goes after lawyers charging the local standard contingency fees. In Counselors Oughtta Counsel (Not Conceal), I argue:
Eugene, Thank you for decloaking and responding at length. I have no doubt that you sincerely want to fulfill all professional obligations, but I think that you — like virtually all lawyers — may have a blind eye or deaf ear concerning fiduciary duties, when fees are involved or when advising clients about alternatives other than those offered by the lawyer himself or herself. Imagine a client came to you complaining about another fiduciary who holds himself out as an advisor or counselor, and said:
What would your response be, if the other fiduciary was anyone other than a lawyer? What would it be if a financial advisor only suggested buying stock in his own company?
You assert that lawyers have very detailed ethical rules, but (1) like many observers, I believe that lawyer ethical Rules or Codes are in fact lowest common denominator prescriptions, made by a guild to protect the members’ interests, especially to avert outside regulation; (2) the Codes do almost no delineation of fiduciary duties; (3) (after trying to quickly reserach your jurisdiciton today, it appears to me that) neither the California Rules of Professional Conduct, nor the California State Bar Act have anything to say about the scope of advice required by lawyers when telling clients of options available to them; and the California Rule 4-200 on Fees, is on its face the weakest in the nation (banning only fees that are “illegal or unconscionable”) — clearly far less than the standards required of a lawyer as fiduciary. However, the California rules specify that they are not exclusive and should be read in light of the rules and opinions of courts and ethics authorities, inside and outside the states.
My position is clearly not that of bar associations and bar counsel, and lawyers don’t like me betraying guild secrets. Mine is, however, a position that follows from the fundamental meaning of what a couselor-at-law and a lawyer-fiduciary owes the client — especially when they claim to uphold the highest standards and to put the client’s interests first. When it comes to a possible loss of business or fees, those claims ring hollow. For example, in my article Pricey Contingency Fees, I point out that the bar (even ATLA) repeatedly says that contingency fee percentages must be based on an assessment of the risk involved, but nonetheless never goes after lawyers charging the local standard contingency fees. In Counselors Oughtta Counsel (Not Conceal), I argue:
p.s. An amusing lawyer-disclosure anecdote: When I started my mediation practice in NY’s Capital Region around 1990, no lawyer was doing divorce mediation in the area, and not one member of the public out of 100 could tell you what mediation was. I checked out ethics opinions to see if there were any special rules for lawyer-mediators and got a surprise — a disclosure requirement imposed by a downstate ethics committee:
Divorce lawyers, of course, had no reciprocal obligation — and it was many years before I met a single attorney who suggested the mediation option to any client (who could afford the lawyer’s divorce fees).
p.s. An amusing lawyer-disclosure anecdote: When I started my mediation practice in NY’s Capital Region around 1990, no lawyer was doing divorce mediation in the area, and not one member of the public out of 100 could tell you what mediation was. I checked out ethics opinions to see if there were any special rules for lawyer-mediators and got a surprise — a disclosure requirement imposed by a downstate ethics committee:
Divorce lawyers, of course, had no reciprocal obligation — and it was many years before I met a single attorney who suggested the mediation option to any client (who could afford the lawyer’s divorce fees).
update (Feb. 16, 1 AM): Lawyer Brad S. Margolis contacted me twice this vening. In his first email, he noted “I am not getting anything for this promotion, In fact I am even paying 100 percent of the filing fees out of my own pocket.” On the issue of his flat fee for uncontested divorces, Margolis stated:
When I responded with more questions, he wrote back and clarified that “in many cases I do charge that fee for an uncontested divorce. [Y]es I do discount my web services as I find the overhead of the web office much lower than the
high priced rent I must factor in to some of my offices.”
I wrote back to say I can’t imagine how the cost of clients attracted online can be so significantly lower as to warrant the difference between $1000 and $375. I also noted that I continue to believe that $1000 is too much for what Margolis himself called the “paper-pushing” of an uncontested divorce. Readers will
have to decide for themselves whether “The approximate retail value of Uncontested Divorce is $1,000.00.”
update (Feb. 16, 1 AM): Lawyer Brad S. Margolis contacted me twice this vening. In his first email, he noted “I am not getting anything for this promotion, In fact I am even paying 100 percent of the filing fees out of my own pocket.” On the issue of his flat fee for uncontested divorces, Margolis stated:
When I responded with more questions, he wrote back and clarified that “in many cases I do charge that fee for an uncontested divorce. [Y]es I do discount my web services as I find the overhead of the web office much lower than the
high priced rent I must factor in to some of my offices.”
I wrote back to say I can’t imagine how the cost of clients attracted online can be so significantly lower as to warrant the difference between $1000 and $375. I also noted that I continue to believe that $1000 is too much for what Margolis himself called the “paper-pushing” of an uncontested divorce. Readers will
have to decide for themselves whether “The approximate retail value of Uncontested Divorce is $1,000.00.”
David, I didn’t “decloak”, I just posted quickly and forgot to put my name in.
Your view of legal ethics seems logically consistent, however, I’m afraid it isn’t grounded in any reality I, or any other lawyer I know, are familiar with. Your Ethical Superlawyer should not be a member of the bar, but a member of the priesthood.
I think everyone, and yes, even clients, are well aware that lawyers are business people as well. We have to pay rent, salaries, overhead, etc. I think it’s naive to believe that a lawyer can ever, purely through force of ethical consideration, subordinate their interests wholly and exclusively to clients’, to the absolute exclusion of practical, financial constraints. You’re building castles in the sky, that no for-profit solo or small firm lawyer can live in.
You refer to lawyers as being members of a “guild”. To the extent a guild is an association of capitalist professionals, that statement is entirely accurate, and hardly anything to be ashamed of. The bar associations are well aware that while high ethical standards are essential to the profession and society, lawyers must also earn a living. Lawyers are, after all, for-profit capitalists.
Might I ask, have you established your own firm, and if so, have you put into practice the highly rigorous moral standards you preach? If you were to share with us your practical observations, rather than highly theoretical heurisms, your observations might be more relevant.
David, I didn’t “decloak”, I just posted quickly and forgot to put my name in.
Your view of legal ethics seems logically consistent, however, I’m afraid it isn’t grounded in any reality I, or any other lawyer I know, are familiar with. Your Ethical Superlawyer should not be a member of the bar, but a member of the priesthood.
I think everyone, and yes, even clients, are well aware that lawyers are business people as well. We have to pay rent, salaries, overhead, etc. I think it’s naive to believe that a lawyer can ever, purely through force of ethical consideration, subordinate their interests wholly and exclusively to clients’, to the absolute exclusion of practical, financial constraints. You’re building castles in the sky, that no for-profit solo or small firm lawyer can live in.
You refer to lawyers as being members of a “guild”. To the extent a guild is an association of capitalist professionals, that statement is entirely accurate, and hardly anything to be ashamed of. The bar associations are well aware that while high ethical standards are essential to the profession and society, lawyers must also earn a living. Lawyers are, after all, for-profit capitalists.
Might I ask, have you established your own firm, and if so, have you put into practice the highly rigorous moral standards you preach? If you were to share with us your practical observations, rather than highly theoretical heurisms, your observations might be more relevant.