Work – Chop!

“Na where you dey work, na there you dey chop” – Nigerian Proverb The issue of charging professional fees as a legal professional is one problem that has hindered the income growth in the industry. Some senior colleagues undercharge while the juniors are scared of charging clients in the fear of losing them. This imbalance […]

“Na where you dey work, na there you dey chop” – Nigerian Proverb

The issue of charging professional fees as a legal professional is one problem that has hindered the income growth in the industry. Some senior colleagues undercharge while the juniors are scared of charging clients in the fear of losing them. This imbalance in our billing system is the root cause of many hungry lawyers in the industry.

A colleague told me she does not collect any upfront of her professional fees until she has rendered the legal service, and her reason for resorting to this kind of billing is to establish trust with the client. Sadly clients still remain clients and disappoint in paying after the job has been done.

Truth be told, clients often do lawyer shopping, seeking legal advice from different lawyers and settling for one who they feel is cheaper, irrespective of the competence of the lawyer to carry out the job. This places a responsibility on lawyers to have a standard of charging professional fees to cut across board – such that way even if a client goes to another lawyer, the price will be relatively the same, leaving the client with no option than to pay.

That aside, it is better for a lawyer to have ten (10) paying clients than to have one hundred (100) clients that struggle to pay their professional fees. A lawyer that knows his/her onions ought not to be desperate for clients, because desperation is what leads many lawyers to settle for less than the standard, and when the workload is not commensurate with the pay, frustration creeps in.

A lawyer’s workshop is the legal service rendered, as such entitled to feed from where he/she works. Upon being called to the Nigerian Bar, it is presumed that a lawyer should be able to cater for basic needs from feeding, clothing, shelter and the like, and if the job is not paying, then such lawyer will be unable to fulfill his/her primary obligation to self and the society.

It is for this reason that we must upgrade our standard of charging professional fees, and device method that will guarantee the fees. Clients will remain clients, likewise, clients that want to stay will stay. Thus lawyers should not use the fear of losing a client as the yardstick for charging professional fees. Don’t be that lawyer that clients only run to when they can’t afford the services of other lawyers.

In the same vein, our senior colleagues ought to encourage the juniors by turning down briefs only befitting of a junior, or better still refer the client to a junior who can handle such brief. If you ask me, the juniors complain about welfare and low pay because what they earn is not commensurate with work done, and more often than not, this is reflected in their appearance.

In the words of Ty Chude “Learned friends should beware of family members and friends who will like you to charge peanuts… charging peanuts won’t bring more clients, rather it will make you cheap; charge well for we are in this profession to cater for our needs”.

It is true that because of the economic situation of the country, one might be tempted to charge little just to have something in the bank, but then when you consider the effort you will put for the success of the job, when the money is finished, one will not be too in a hurry to accept that brief. Clients only see the importance of a lawyer when in trouble, sometimes the brief would have gone half bad before they consult a lawyer. So why kill yourself for a problem you had no hand creating? And if you must kill yourself for the brief, then charge well.

In sum, there is an urgent need for a review of professional fees and how lawyers should charge their clients. This can be achieved if we place a standard on the way we (senior and juniors alike) charge clients. We are responsible for the image of the profession, and the change we desire cannot be achieved unless there is a conscious effort by all to charge appropriately for briefs that come to our law firms. “Na where we dey work, na there we go chop”.

Godspeed!

Do send your comment(s), observation(s) and recommendation(s) to [email protected]