Professionals who charge you their full hourly rate to learn

Health insurance rip off lying FDA big bankers buying
Fake computer crashes dining
Cloning while they're multiplying
Fashion shoots with Beck and Hanson
Courtney Love, and Marilyn Manson
You're all fakes
Run to your mansions
Come around
We'll kick your ass in

Postby Robert » Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:25 am

I wish I still had Lexis access
User avatar
Robert
 
Posts: 3044
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 11:41 pm

Postby Platypus » Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:26 am

roy wrote:and platypus, if i thought a professional should just know basic stuff, i'd hire a college sophmore - not someone with a graduate degree and 15+ years of experience


yeah but you started out by saying that this area the person was researching would only be helpful to 1 in 200 or 500 clients. the minute something is off the beaten path, that requires research, work, time etc, why would you get that for free
User avatar
Platypus
 
Posts: 2270
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 10:26 am

Postby Merciel » Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:32 am

Platypus wrote:
roy wrote:and platypus, if i thought a professional should just know basic stuff, i'd hire a college sophmore - not someone with a graduate degree and 15+ years of experience


yeah but you started out by saying that this area the person was researching would only be helpful to 1 in 200 or 500 clients. if a lawyer is practicing in a certain specialized field than yeah he'll have alot of knowledge at his fingertips just through experience. but the minute something is off the beaten path, that requires research, work, time etc, why would you get that for free


I wrote an actual serious response here but then I realized that I'd be replying to a post (roy's, not platypus') that apparently doesn't recognize the difference between bullshitting about a topic in casual conversation and giving actual professional advice that opens you up to malpractice risks if you're wrong in some tiny detail.

So yeah never mind.
User avatar
Merciel
Hipinion Dog Lady
 
Posts: 23830
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:06 pm
Location: dog dog dog

Postby roy » Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:33 am

Platypus wrote:
roy wrote:and platypus, if i thought a professional should just know basic stuff, i'd hire a college sophmore - not someone with a graduate degree and 15+ years of experience


yeah but you started out by saying that this area the person was researching would only be helpful to 1 in 200 or 500 clients. if a lawyer is practicing in a certain specialized field than yeah he'll have alot of knowledge at his fingertips just through experience. but the minute something is off the beaten path, that requires research, work, time etc, why would you get that for free

go reread that first post that you cite. i said the learning should be done at a reduced rate - not full rate. and the thing is, there's lots of seemingly obscure stuff that only a handful of clients use, because few people know about it or have thought about the implications. a lot of techniques could probably be used by other clients - if the professional only fucking knew about it and gave it some thought.
I ain't sayin' she a gold digger,
But she ain't messin' with no broke niggas
User avatar
roy
long term boarder
 
Posts: 8273
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:14 pm
Location: rockin' in the free world

Postby Feech La Manna » Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:36 am

So, by reading your first post, professionals should only charge their full rate when they're hired by Bill Gates?
badhat wrote:bike solve all problems
User avatar
Feech La Manna
noir as fuck
 
Posts: 70145
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 9:45 pm
Location: Snoopy and Prickly Pete

Postby roy » Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:38 am

Merciel wrote:
Platypus wrote:
roy wrote:and platypus, if i thought a professional should just know basic stuff, i'd hire a college sophmore - not someone with a graduate degree and 15+ years of experience


yeah but you started out by saying that this area the person was researching would only be helpful to 1 in 200 or 500 clients. if a lawyer is practicing in a certain specialized field than yeah he'll have alot of knowledge at his fingertips just through experience. but the minute something is off the beaten path, that requires research, work, time etc, why would you get that for free


I wrote an actual serious response here but then I realized that I'd be replying to a post (roy's, not platypus') that apparently doesn't recognize the difference between bullshitting about a topic in casual conversation and giving actual professional advice that opens you up to malpractice risks if you're wrong in some tiny detail.

So yeah never mind.

what?! my post "doesn't recognize the difference between bullshitting about a topic in casual conversation and giving actual professional advice?" can you rework that sentence? i promise i won't sue especially because i don't think it contains any legal advice.

god you guys are serious. i create a topic to let off steam and y'all don't seem to recognize that this isn't a supreme court case. if anything, it's like a heads-up to future professionals of the world that there comes a point when your clients are just going to start looking elsewhere.
I ain't sayin' she a gold digger,
But she ain't messin' with no broke niggas
User avatar
roy
long term boarder
 
Posts: 8273
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:14 pm
Location: rockin' in the free world

Postby Merciel » Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:43 am

roy wrote:if anything, it's like a heads-up to future professionals of the world that there comes a point when you'll bill your clients just to make them go elsewhere.
User avatar
Merciel
Hipinion Dog Lady
 
Posts: 23830
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:06 pm
Location: dog dog dog

Postby roy » Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:44 am

Feech La Manna wrote:So, by reading your first post, professionals should only charge their full rate when they're hired by Bill Gates?

man, you need remedial reading.

learning about something that's so arcane that only a handful, a few dozen, maybe a few hundred US citizens use it - sure charge full rate. but something that's useful enough to maybe 30,000 to 80,000 people and common enough to be discussed in major newspapers, well maybe it's something you really should have known about already. give the client a discount on the time you take to understand it, especially if she provides most of the info.

as for normal work, yeah full price is ok - unless it's a ton of work, and then a discount (say 10%) should be negotiable. i'm nowhere near that though.
I ain't sayin' she a gold digger,
But she ain't messin' with no broke niggas
User avatar
roy
long term boarder
 
Posts: 8273
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:14 pm
Location: rockin' in the free world

Postby Platypus » Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:44 am

Roy i think the problem is that yr underestimating how much work it sometimes takes for a lawyer or a professional to "learn" something. half of a professional's job (and skill) is to learn what needs to be learned to help you. you might not have realized it but that is precisely what you are paying for
User avatar
Platypus
 
Posts: 2270
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 10:26 am

Postby Merciel » Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:44 am

Although I have to say this thread has greatly increased my job satisfaction because it has caused me to reflect that when I get dumb research requests, that person usually gets to spend another decade in jail as a result.
User avatar
Merciel
Hipinion Dog Lady
 
Posts: 23830
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:06 pm
Location: dog dog dog

Postby KALM » Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:47 am

roy wrote:what?! my post "doesn't recognize the difference between bullshitting about a topic in casual conversation and giving actual professional advice?" can you rework that sentence? i promise i won't sue especially because i don't think it contains any legal advice.

i think she's saying that while a lawyer may be as familiar with a topic as anyone else who's read a wsj article about it (which is to say enough to bullshit about it in casual conversation), giving actual professional advice on the topic requires additional research (since getting the tiniest detail wrong could open yourself up to malpractice risks). that's what you're paying for.

of course since you didn't get into specifics in your original post, it's very possible that no one has any idea what anyone's talking about in this thread.
User avatar
KALM
 
Posts: 10642
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:45 pm

Postby roy » Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:49 am

Merciel wrote:
roy wrote:if anything, it's like a heads-up to future professionals of the world that there comes a point when you'll bill your clients just to make them go elsewhere.

eh, this is actually the second time i've encountered this situation. the first guy still calls me ever quarter and has me on his monthly newsletter even though i told him adios (and why) two and a half years ago.
I ain't sayin' she a gold digger,
But she ain't messin' with no broke niggas
User avatar
roy
long term boarder
 
Posts: 8273
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:14 pm
Location: rockin' in the free world

Postby The Dirty Turtle » Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:51 am

KALM wrote:
roy wrote:what?! my post "doesn't recognize the difference between bullshitting about a topic in casual conversation and giving actual professional advice?" can you rework that sentence? i promise i won't sue especially because i don't think it contains any legal advice.

i think she's saying that while a lawyer may be as familiar with a topic as anyone else who's read a wsj article about it (which is to say enough to bullshit about it in casual conversation), giving actual professional advice on the topic requires additional research (since getting the tiniest detail wrong could open yourself up to malpractice risks). that's what you're paying for.

of course since you didn't get into specifics in your original post, it's very possible that no one has any idea what anyone's talking about in this thread.


my theory is that roy is suggesting that if the issue is prevalent enough to be written about by the national media then it would logically follow that a lawyer should be well enough versed in the topic to give out legal advice regarding said topic
User avatar
The Dirty Turtle
ok
 
Posts: 38484
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 4:04 am
Location: Cannot be found

Postby roy » Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:51 am

Merciel wrote:Although I have to say this thread has greatly increased my job satisfaction because it has caused me to reflect that when I get dumb research requests, that person usually gets to spend another decade in jail as a result.

are you a trust lawyer? or a tax lawyer? i didn't even reference the strategy i was considering.
I ain't sayin' she a gold digger,
But she ain't messin' with no broke niggas
User avatar
roy
long term boarder
 
Posts: 8273
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:14 pm
Location: rockin' in the free world

Postby The Dirty Turtle » Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:52 am

i think we will need to get a few more lawyers in here to figure out exactly what were even talking about
User avatar
The Dirty Turtle
ok
 
Posts: 38484
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 4:04 am
Location: Cannot be found

Postby pinkerton » Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:52 am

gutenmorgan wrote:Roy, at my old firm we would discount this stuff slightly "behind the scenes," so it's probably being done for you anyway. On a side note, clients always underestimate how much effort their requests require, and all of the little annoyances ("quick phonecalls," off-hours emails, etc.) probably escaped the tenth of an hour billing we were technically supposed to record.


our richest client attempted to pay a $1000 bill in used fire hose once
User avatar
pinkerton
 
Posts: 13739
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:05 pm

Postby Infinity Lunker » Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:53 am

<<<HUGZZ>>>
User avatar
Infinity Lunker
the drink moth
 
Posts: 10378
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:14 pm
Location: The endangered Brainforest of North America

Postby roy » Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:53 am

The Dirty Turtle wrote:
KALM wrote:
roy wrote:what?! my post "doesn't recognize the difference between bullshitting about a topic in casual conversation and giving actual professional advice?" can you rework that sentence? i promise i won't sue especially because i don't think it contains any legal advice.

i think she's saying that while a lawyer may be as familiar with a topic as anyone else who's read a wsj article about it (which is to say enough to bullshit about it in casual conversation), giving actual professional advice on the topic requires additional research (since getting the tiniest detail wrong could open yourself up to malpractice risks). that's what you're paying for.

of course since you didn't get into specifics in your original post, it's very possible that no one has any idea what anyone's talking about in this thread.


my theory is that roy is suggesting that if the issue is prevalent enough to be written about by the national media then it would logically follow that a lawyer should be well enough versed in the topic to give out legal advice regarding said topic

well said. thank you.
I ain't sayin' she a gold digger,
But she ain't messin' with no broke niggas
User avatar
roy
long term boarder
 
Posts: 8273
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:14 pm
Location: rockin' in the free world

Postby Ted Pikul » Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:53 am

How do you set the dividing lines from only a dozen people use this, to 80,000 people use this, to something that is actually common?

Because 80,000 people is really not that many people
loaf angel wrote:I love how Ted makes every thread as a testament to how fucking boring he is.

"I bought a new garden hose mk 2"
User avatar
Ted Pikul
DARE.
 
Posts: 31676
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:01 pm
Location: Salvador Dali's garden party

Postby Platypus » Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:54 am

roy wrote:
Merciel wrote:Although I have to say this thread has greatly increased my job satisfaction because it has caused me to reflect that when I get dumb research requests, that person usually gets to spend another decade in jail as a result.

are you a trust lawyer? or a tax lawyer? i didn't even reference the strategy i was considering.


from what i can tell the worst kind of prosecutor
User avatar
Platypus
 
Posts: 2270
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 10:26 am

Postby BlackSugar » Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:56 am

if I'm seeking legal advice, I would be a little put off if my counsel said something like "look, this creative legal strategy should work because I read about it in the wall street journal a few weeks ago"
I come like a thousand doves
User avatar
BlackSugar
COMING SOON
 
Posts: 25075
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:12 pm
Location: addicted to what the dick did

Postby black mamba » Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:58 am

i no longer feel sorry for the starving kids in africa
Image
User avatar
black mamba
ok
 
Posts: 12650
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:19 pm
Location: my fat fabulous life

Postby Pokemon Mastah » Thu Oct 14, 2010 12:00 pm

I prepare bills for solicitors fees. It fucking sucks. Turned me into an alocoholic.
User avatar
Pokemon Mastah
 
Posts: 3537
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:02 pm

Postby Merciel » Thu Oct 14, 2010 12:00 pm

The Dirty Turtle wrote:my theory is that roy is suggesting that if the issue is prevalent enough to be written about by the national media then it would logically follow that a lawyer should be well enough versed in the topic to give out legal advice regarding said topic


Which is real dumb.

wheeljack wrote:merciel probably spends 5 percent of her work day cackling because she made a public defender cry


Nah. I probably do spend about 25% of my work day completely infuriated about the stupidity of the defense bar, but most of the worst offenders aren't PDs.

The hierarchy of defense lawyer competence goes: high-priced private attorney > good PD > mid-range private attorney > burned-out or incompetent PD > court-appointed private attorney.
User avatar
Merciel
Hipinion Dog Lady
 
Posts: 23830
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:06 pm
Location: dog dog dog

Postby The Dirty Turtle » Thu Oct 14, 2010 12:03 pm

i should clarify, if clarification was necessary, that my theory was only a theory about the theory and was not a comment on the validity of the theory that i was speculating about
User avatar
The Dirty Turtle
ok
 
Posts: 38484
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 4:04 am
Location: Cannot be found

Postby Feech La Manna » Thu Oct 14, 2010 12:04 pm

BlackSugar wrote:if I'm seeking legal advice, I would be a little put off if my counsel said something like "look, this creative legal strategy should work because I read about it in the wall street journal a few weeks ago"


Well you see, the lawyer should have spent his off-the-clock time researching it so that he can charge clients less in the future.
badhat wrote:bike solve all problems
User avatar
Feech La Manna
noir as fuck
 
Posts: 70145
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 9:45 pm
Location: Snoopy and Prickly Pete

Postby pinkerton » Thu Oct 14, 2010 12:06 pm

also if you have hired the right professional they should have someone they can pay $10-15/hour to learn whatever they need to know
my boss bills at half her normal rate when i do most of whatever she's billing for, which still comes out to over 10x my hourly rate
User avatar
pinkerton
 
Posts: 13739
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:05 pm

Postby roy » Thu Oct 14, 2010 12:07 pm

Ted Pikul wrote:How do you set the dividing lines from only a dozen people use this, to 80,000 people use this, to something that is actually common?

Because 80,000 people is really not that many people

well, how many personal income tax returns are filed every year? there are about 300 million, right? a lot of those are kids, and households. so maybe there are 100-150 million personal returns filed? and say 65% of people do their own taxes because they're pretty straightforward? and another 25% tax their stuff to H&R block or whatever. (that might be an exagerration.) i don't know how many people use tax advisors, but it's hard for me to believe it's more than 10% of the population. so that's like 10-15 million people. so 80,000 of 15,000,000 is like one in every 187.5 clients, well within the initial parameters i set.
I ain't sayin' she a gold digger,
But she ain't messin' with no broke niggas
User avatar
roy
long term boarder
 
Posts: 8273
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:14 pm
Location: rockin' in the free world

Postby Johan POOPLER » Thu Oct 14, 2010 12:09 pm

roy wrote:
Ted Pikul wrote:How do you set the dividing lines from only a dozen people use this, to 80,000 people use this, to something that is actually common?

Because 80,000 people is really not that many people

well, how many personal income tax returns are filed every year? there are about 300 million, right? a lot of those are kids, and households. so maybe there are 100-150 million personal returns filed? and say 65% of people do their own taxes because they're pretty straightforward? and another 25% tax their stuff to H&R block or whatever. (that might be an exagerration.) i don't know how many people use tax advisors, but it's hard for me to believe it's more than 10% of the population. so that's like 10-15 million people. so 80,000 of 15,000,000 is like one in every 187.5 clients, well within the initial parameters i set.


how much do i owe you for this post?? LOL!
das ding wrote:
so what did he have to say about manly attraction to sheep?

i dunno. it's a very sad aspect of our nature, but also one of the foundations of love

ImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Johan POOPLER
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13486
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 9:14 pm
Location: ‘laid-back, swearing, burping.”

Postby Feech La Manna » Thu Oct 14, 2010 12:10 pm

This is about a tax return?

oy
badhat wrote:bike solve all problems
User avatar
Feech La Manna
noir as fuck
 
Posts: 70145
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 9:45 pm
Location: Snoopy and Prickly Pete

PreviousNext

Return to Don't. Let. Go. You’ve got the music in you.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ankh, bluemovers, bort, brent, building jumper, dan, Dinosauria We, freezinseason, good news, goodtimes, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Google Feedfetcher, Julius Sumner Miller, kentucky, launchpad, Magazine, messier object, miss black america, mortimer, oh! it's max!, Percy Dovetonsils, seank37, Shotfrog, Spoons