Bolingbrook Lawyers Break Mold of Traditional Attorney's Fees

I’ve practiced law in Illinois for over 17 years. I wanted to be a lawyer since I was 5. My father was a lawyer. My wife is a lawyer. My sister-in-law is a lawyer. Most of my friends are lawyers. One might think that this would mean that I think like a traditional lawyer – but I don’t. At least not when it comes to the business end of being a lawyer.

It’s no secret that lawyers sometimes get a bad rap. Sometimes deservedly so. Many times, negativity towards lawyers comes from the cost for a lawyer’s time. The average person rarely needs the assistance of a lawyer, so much like doctors, it can be a bit shocking when a person finds out how expensive a lawyer’s time can be. Hourly rates for attorneys can vary greatly, but commonly we see them range from as low as $175 to more than $500 per hour, sometimes more, sometimes less. Frequently, the more specialized and experienced, the greater the cost. Add to that the fact that many lawyers find it impossible to tell a client what the total cost for representation will be for a matter and the situation can breed distrust between attorney and client – which is never a good thing.

While many large corporations budget for legal expenses and expect to pay such costs regularly to receive assistance on legal issues, the average person and small corporation has limited experience when it comes to working with attorneys. Frequently these same clients also have limited financial means.

While many attorneys will disagree with me, I am a firm believer that not all legal matters require the assistance of lawyer. Sometimes it is frankly not worth the cost or clients simply cannot afford to pay for the lawyer’s time. There is a basic cost versus benefit analysis that goes into deciding whether or not to retain an attorney as well as practical concerns about affordability.

As an example: you hire a landscaper to do some work and pay a $1,500 deposit but they never do the work. While that is a significant amount of money to be out of pocket for most people, it is hard to justify spending $2,000 on an attorney to file a lawsuit to get back your money. This is the kind of situation where “limited scope representation” can be quite useful.

“Limited scope representation,” sometimes also referred to as “unbundled legal services,” by an attorney are what they sound like. The attorney is hired to handle part, but not all, of what might be required for a case. For smaller matters this type of representation frequently makes more sense than hiring a lawyer to handle the matter from start to finish. As example, for that $1,500 deposit paid to the landscaper, while it wouldn’t make much sense to pay the lawyer $2,000 to file the case, attend all court dates, draft and file all documents, handle all communications and pursue it to judgment, it is likely well worth the money to pay that same lawyer $300 to sit down with you and to walk you through the basics of what you need to do to handle it yourself.

No, limited scope representation is not the same as having an attorney represent you in all aspects of the case. It is also true that not all cases and situations are appropriate for limited scope representation. Traumatic injury cases are a great example, an experienced attorney will likely be able to increase the value of a settlement much more than a self-represented litigant can on their own. Corporations are also at a disadvantage in court as they are not allowed to litigate a matter without an attorney representing them. It is also true that no hour-long meeting will be a replacement for the years of education and experience that a lawyer brings to the table. With this said, when limited scope representation is appropriate it can give you some of the help you need at a cost you can afford.

So how do you know if you need to retain an attorney for part or all of your case? Here are a few questions to consider:

1. How much money or risk is involved?
2. If you lose what will be the effect on you?
3. Are you comfortable with learning about the law?
4. Are you ok taking on some of the responsibility for your case and its outcome?
5. Can you afford to hire an attorney?

These are some of the things I and the lawyers at my firm consider every day when we discuss matters with clients because they are critical elements in making decisions on how to proceed. While cases often have similarities, each client is unique, this makes each case also unique. For some clients and legal issues limited scope representation can work well and provide a viable alternative to traditional attorney/client representation. Other times it is not how a client should be represented. Because it can vary, we consider limited scope representation to be a “tool” that we can offer to our clients, when appropriate.

About the author: Joe Giamanco is a partner at Giamanco Law Partners, Ltd. His law firm has offices in Bolingbrook, Illinois and New Lenox, Illinois. The attorneys at Giamanco Law Partners handle many types of legal matters including traumatic personal injury cases, business and general litigation, family law, divorce, child custody, criminal defense, traffic matters and DUI law, debt collection defense, workman’s compensation, employment law and basic estate planning. The lawyers at the firm provide free initial phone consultations and can be reached at their Bolingbrook office at 630-635-5555 or their New Lenox office at 815-435-5555. For more information about the law firm visit www.glawpartners.com or www.facebook.com/giamancolaw.