Over time, most professionals become pretty good at spotting clients who ain’t gonna pay.
Some of these red flags are:
- clients who send the same e-mail to at least a dozen different lawyers
- or, even worse, those who additionally send the same e-mail to the United Nations, Interpol and CNN
- people who contact you with “only a quick question”
- those who start their call or message by explaining that they don’t really need a lawyer, because they have already done all the research themselves and the law is, of course, obviously on their side
- those who explain that the whole system is rotten, that lawyers are part of it, and that it’s 1930s Germany all over again
- those who ask a question “for a good friend”
- rambling requests sent at 2 o’clock in the morning
- people who mention how wealthy and/or important they are
- messages that feign urgency, when there is none
- clients who point out that “my case will make you famous”
But the funniest thing is when somebody writes an e-mail, in which they explicitly state that they do want to pay for your services, but you know they won’t.
Here is an example from last week, after I had replied to the initial e-mail with a quote for a very modest consultation fee. I had even deviated from my standard fee, because it wasn’t exactly a very complicated case. Except for the complicated client, perhaps.
Dear Andreas,
I must express my surprise at the apparent tone of your message. While I understand the importance of your expertise and the value of legal advice, the juxtaposition of your statement that my question is a “very typical one” and the subsequent request for payment seems contradictory.
It’s funny when people who aren’t lawyers try to sound like one, but it ends up reading like convoluted nonsense.
Your initial assertion, “As your question is a very typical one, I don’t need to charge my full consultation fee,” led me to believe that my inquiry fell within the scope of routine queries you encounter.
It did. But you also gotta pay for routine haircuts, routine pizzas and even for routine heart surgery.
I want to assure you that my intention was never to seek a free service. I am more than willing to compensate for your time and expertise, as I understand the value of professional guidance.
It probably took you longer to verbosely “assure your intention” and “willingness to compensate” than a simple bank/Paypal transfer would have taken.
However, the accusatory note in your message implies an assumption that I am fishing for free advice, which is not conducive to establishing a professional and collaborative relationship.
Oh gosh, now it descends into the tone of those bland and boring business websites. I understand that, in order to make a living, we sometimes need to do things which are not particularly honorable. But when people think that human beings really talk like this, it makes me more sad than an orphanage full of children from Chernobyl, each of them with several tumors, gnawing away at their innocent little brains.
I am genuinely seeking assistance and guidance in navigating the complexities surrounding German citizenship, and I am more than willing to honor your fee structure.
When people say that they will “honor” something, you know they won’t. People who “honor” someone else’s territorial integrity, for example, usually invade their next-door neighbor soon thereafter.
Also, I don’t really have nothing as fancy as a “fee structure“.
If there is any misunderstanding or clarification needed on my part, please let me know. I believe a transparent and open communication style is key to fostering a positive working relationship.
Actually, without no payment, there ain’t gonna be no “positive working relationship” that can’t be “fostered”.
Thank you for your understanding, and I look forward to the opportunity to engage in a mutually beneficial professional exchange in the future.
“I would prefer not to,” as Bartleby said. And he worked at a law office, so he should know.
Links:
- More legal stuff.
- Some thoughts on lawyer’s fees.
The Happy Hermit 
I was boiling while reading that garbage from your “client”, and it wasn’t even my client! Things like that make one reconsider if it’s all worth it :-)
I would add to your list those who write, “I have a really very simple case” – a variation on your point #4. It implies that it’s simple, so the fee should be too. My usual response – so why waste money paying me?
When they say “its’ only a quick qurestion”, I usually say that a quick question often has a long answer.
Sorry you had to read that, when it sounds like you already have to deal with folks like that in your own business.
Oh yes, the “very simple case”, which often appears simple only to people who don’t know anything about law.
A variation of this are people who write their own letters and “only need a lawyer to put it on their letterhead and sign it”.
But I think we are going to “lose” all these cheapskates to ChatGPT now. :-)
Happy New Year Andreas,there are more skeets out there now than ever before.”Skeet” is a Newfoundland term meaning petty crook. A pox on them all. If they are so brilliant and learned ,let them do it themselves.People,they are the worst, as Jerry Seinfeld said. Rock on my friend and take no prisoners.
G Franklyn Hiscock.
I actually sometimes recommend that to clients:
“If you think it’s easy, do it yourself.”
Or:
“If you think I am too expensive, there is a cheaper solution: Go to law school, study for a few years, pass two exams, and then do it yourself.”
In my part of the US many legal fees for normal services are carefully prescribed by statute. So are the individual activities, so there’s a rate per phone call, another for each document mailed or faxed, and so forth. As you imagine, we spend more time carefully noting and categorizing each discrete step than the activity itself requires.
In Germany, we also have statutory fees.
These are relevant if the attorney and client don’t agree on anything else, if the state pays the attorney (the statutory fees are reduced in that case), and for compensation of lawyer’s fees by the opposing party.
But it’s not quite as detailed – or should I say tedious – as it sounds in your case.
However, the clerks at the court really love to reduce lawyer’s invoices, especially travel expenses: “You would have saved 3 dollars, if you had taken the local bus to the gas station on Highway 17 and only gotten on the Greyhound there.”
Hahahahahaha… thanks for the merriment. As a lawyer myself, I can entirely sympathize.
Really? All the other comments, and it’s up to little old me? Okay, okay, fine. “Routine pizzas? Where do I sign up?” Or maybe just, “Routine pizzas. Narf!” ;)
Isn’t “I’ll gladly pay” something like “The check’s in the mail”? Seems like it, where that guy was concerned. It’s a time payment – when time runs out (for all eternity), he’ll pay. Ever hear of a mechanic rebuilding your engine, or a painter painting your house, as “just a quick favour”? Yet in the professional world, it’s always “Hey, can you spare a few minutes?” Yes, even us old programmers routinely get hit up to rebuild people’s trashed PCs as “a quick favour”. Yeesh!
I should point out that it was a lady, not a guy.
That reminds me, I have to add an additional category of obnoxious clients: “wife of someone who is wealthy/important”
The beauty of equal rights. Difficult to tell male rudeness from female rudeness. Progress, eh? ;)
People are so funny when they try to use all the big words. Thanks for giving me a giggle😂
It behooves me not to subject the content and the wording of messages and information conveyed to me under the expectation of confidentiality to unwarranted and extravagant criticism.
I reckon that reply has got AI all over it. In my experience some AI writing programs are overly flowery and formal. I wouldn’t be surprised if she asked AI to write this for her. Either that or she is unbelievably uptight and needs to take a few deep breaths and chill out. As to bad payers, I am still waiting for a huge multinational to pay a couple of large invoices dated August 31! Dealing with a faceless multinational that has somehow “lost” my invoices is one of the more frustrating aspects of being a freelancer.
I was actually wondering the same, if this is what AI produces when you ask it to write in “legalese”.
Well, that would be even more of a reason not to work with a client, if they don’t even write their own correspondence.
Sooner or later, lawyers will use this AI to write lawsuits, the defendant will file an AI-crafted response, and the judge is going to let the AI write a decision. :-(
In my experience, the larger a corporation is, the more it turns into a bureaucracy.
And the funny/sad thing is that they always think that their internal machinations are of any relevance. “Our guidelines require that …” “We are restructuring our workflow and processes to better …” “The person dealing with your invoices has been transferred to …”
In reality, none of that is relevant. You got a contract, you provided your services, they have to pay.
To sum it up: you should sue them!
Pingback: Die zwei wichtigsten Lektionen von der letzten Bilderberg-Konferenz | Der reisende Reporter