Comments on: Is Geeklawyer *really* too expensive? http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/05/23/is-geeklawyer-really-too-expensive/ A barrister gossips & rants on intellectual property law, the legal system and civil liberties. Tue, 02 Dec 2008 12:09:15 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: Geeklawyer http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/05/23/is-geeklawyer-really-too-expensive/#comment-18768 Geeklawyer Sun, 09 Dec 2007 12:51:53 +0000 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/05/23/is-geeklawyer-really-too-expensive/#comment-18768 I'm not sure it's that simple: pricing follows your business model. For a boutique firm like Hull-McGuire low client numbers and high margins (with concomitant client care as an inevitable corollary) are a good approach, but for other legal sectors & client profiles alternative models may work better. It may be more profitable to take punters in on a conveyor belt, stamp out cookie cutter service, take the low profit margin fee but do so on large volumes: some UK criminal legal-aid practices work like that & I'm sure there must be an equivalent in the US. Just don't confuse those business models :lol: I’m not sure it’s that simple: pricing follows your business model. For a boutique firm like Hull-McGuire low client numbers and high margins (with concomitant client care as an inevitable corollary) are a good approach, but for other legal sectors & client profiles alternative models may work better. It may be more profitable to take punters in on a conveyor belt, stamp out cookie cutter service, take the low profit margin fee but do so on large volumes: some UK criminal legal-aid practices work like that & I’m sure there must be an equivalent in the US.

Just don’t confuse those business models :lol:

]]> By: Dan Hull http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/05/23/is-geeklawyer-really-too-expensive/#comment-18758 Dan Hull Sun, 09 Dec 2007 03:23:19 +0000 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/05/23/is-geeklawyer-really-too-expensive/#comment-18758 Expensive = "good". Inexpensive = "bad". "Expensive" keeps riff-raff away. (Was that a haiku...?) Expensive = “good”. Inexpensive = “bad”. “Expensive” keeps riff-raff away. (Was that a haiku…?)

]]> By: Ruthie http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/05/23/is-geeklawyer-really-too-expensive/#comment-11870 Ruthie Sun, 27 May 2007 19:20:27 +0000 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/05/23/is-geeklawyer-really-too-expensive/#comment-11870 Posting rights duly restored Ruthie will now concede that Geeklawyer may have a point about MySpace. It's owned by Murdoch which is a good reason not to use it. Having had a look I've come to the conclusion that I probably have no need to the use of social networking site since I have friends that I can email or phone if I want to contact them. Whilst the appeal of global domination via the Ruthie fanclub is huge, I've come to the conclusion I'd rather keep my fanclub as a small but elite group, and just to chat to you all on here.. xxx :grin: Posting rights duly restored Ruthie will now concede that Geeklawyer may have a point about MySpace. It’s owned by Murdoch which is a good reason not to use it.

Having had a look I’ve come to the conclusion that I probably have no need to the use of social networking site since I have friends that I can email or phone if I want to contact them.

Whilst the appeal of global domination via the Ruthie fanclub is huge, I’ve come to the conclusion I’d rather keep my fanclub as a small but elite group, and just to chat to you all on here..

xxx

:grin:

]]> By: Geeklawyer http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/05/23/is-geeklawyer-really-too-expensive/#comment-11835 Geeklawyer Sun, 27 May 2007 08:17:58 +0000 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/05/23/is-geeklawyer-really-too-expensive/#comment-11835 Myspace is an irredeemably naff place: loud garish and uncouth. Your perfect hangout, a place to reside with your fan club, i.e. alone. And If I didn't know you better I'd imagine you were posting while drunk! Myspace is an irredeemably naff place: loud garish and uncouth. Your perfect hangout, a place to reside with your fan club, i.e. alone.

And If I didn’t know you better I’d imagine you were posting while drunk!

]]> By: Ruthie http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/05/23/is-geeklawyer-really-too-expensive/#comment-11784 Ruthie Sat, 26 May 2007 17:19:40 +0000 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/05/23/is-geeklawyer-really-too-expensive/#comment-11784 Re: Ruthie fan club. I will set up something on my space shortly. :mrgreen: But what the fanclub really needs is a Ruthie website... :mrgreen: Re: Ruthie fan club. I will set up something on my space shortly. :mrgreen:

But what the fanclub really needs is a Ruthie website… :mrgreen:

]]> By: Ruthie http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/05/23/is-geeklawyer-really-too-expensive/#comment-11782 Ruthie Sat, 26 May 2007 17:18:26 +0000 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/05/23/is-geeklawyer-really-too-expensive/#comment-11782 P.S. To Dan: this is why I haven't been able to correct your spelling error as requested yet. P.S. To Dan: this is why I haven’t been able to correct your spelling error as requested yet.

]]> By: Ruthie http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/05/23/is-geeklawyer-really-too-expensive/#comment-11781 Ruthie Sat, 26 May 2007 17:16:51 +0000 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/05/23/is-geeklawyer-really-too-expensive/#comment-11781 On occasions when I row with Geeklawyer I'm very tempted to take my ball away and set up a Ruthielawyer blog. But I must concede through gritted teeth that it would probably be less entertaining than this one. So whilst I recognise my actual position of superiority, i like to keep it to myself, and allow Geeklawyer to continue to delude himself that he is the reason for this blog's success. Still I'm delighted to see that I now have an official fanclub. Whilst personally I find it hard to take myself that seriously, I do think the fanclub is to be encouraged because it irritates the hell out of Geeklawyer. So, fanboy, I'm giving you the honour of being the first official member of the Ruthie fanclub. Readers should be aware that the lack off Ruthie posts over the last week is nothing to do with Ruthie's workload. Ruthie has been on posting strike. After the conference, Geeklawyer had a fit of pique when the full extent of Ruthie's popularity was revealed and decided to reduce her posting rights by one level. This meant she could not longer post directly onto the blog, but her posts would have to been reviewed by Geeklawyer. After some discussion about this issue, it became clear that the problem was nothing to do with the quality of Ruthie's posts and everything to do with Geeklawyer's ego and a desire to remind Ruthie who *is* boss. ACAS has been called in, and I'm confident that a negotiated settlement will be arrived at shortly. On occasions when I row with Geeklawyer I’m very tempted to take my ball away and set up a Ruthielawyer blog. But I must concede through gritted teeth that it would probably be less entertaining than this one. So whilst I recognise my actual position of superiority, i like to keep it to myself, and allow Geeklawyer to continue to delude himself that he is the reason for this blog’s success.

Still I’m delighted to see that I now have an official fanclub. Whilst personally I find it hard to take myself that seriously, I do think the fanclub is to be encouraged because it irritates the hell out of Geeklawyer. So, fanboy, I’m giving you the honour of being the first official member of the Ruthie fanclub.

Readers should be aware that the lack off Ruthie posts over the last week is nothing to do with Ruthie’s workload. Ruthie has been on posting strike.

After the conference, Geeklawyer had a fit of pique when the full extent of Ruthie’s popularity was revealed and decided to reduce her posting rights by one level. This meant she could not longer post directly onto the blog, but her posts would have to been reviewed by Geeklawyer.

After some discussion about this issue, it became clear that the problem was nothing to do with the quality of Ruthie’s posts and everything to do with Geeklawyer’s ego and a desire to remind Ruthie who *is* boss.

ACAS has been called in, and I’m confident that a negotiated settlement will be arrived at shortly.

]]> By: Fanboy http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/05/23/is-geeklawyer-really-too-expensive/#comment-11341 Fanboy Thu, 24 May 2007 11:18:44 +0000 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/05/23/is-geeklawyer-really-too-expensive/#comment-11341 Spot on. She does. So when does the blog name change to Ruthie & her Geeklawyer Biatche? Spot on. She does. So when does the blog name change to Ruthie & her Geeklawyer Biatche?

]]> By: Geeklawyer http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/05/23/is-geeklawyer-really-too-expensive/#comment-11335 Geeklawyer Thu, 24 May 2007 09:28:41 +0000 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/05/23/is-geeklawyer-really-too-expensive/#comment-11335 Damn. Am I really that easy to manipulated? I'm just too sweet & trusting - probably explains why Ruthie rules me. Damn. Am I really that easy to manipulated? I’m just too sweet & trusting - probably explains why Ruthie rules me.

]]> By: Nearly Legal http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/05/23/is-geeklawyer-really-too-expensive/#comment-11274 Nearly Legal Wed, 23 May 2007 18:32:03 +0000 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/05/23/is-geeklawyer-really-too-expensive/#comment-11274 Heh. I had read the article, but thought that the best way to get geeklawyer to read something was to suggest it insulted him or threatened his life style as a voluptuary. That said, the article suggested that cost of disclosure was supplemented by the costs of "lengthy cross-examination and oral argument" (encouraged by the mountains of disclosure). <em>J'accuse</em> :wink: You're not wrong about the LSC. We poor civil legal aid sewer rats suffer enforced cheapness, with some serious remedies. I hit £25K costs on a £200K claim and the LSC killed my grandmother. By the way, your link to the times article points to my blog. Grateful for the potential traffic but... Heh. I had read the article, but thought that the best way to get geeklawyer to read something was to suggest it insulted him or threatened his life style as a voluptuary.

That said, the article suggested that cost of disclosure was supplemented by the costs of “lengthy cross-examination and oral argument” (encouraged by the mountains of disclosure). J’accuse :wink:

You’re not wrong about the LSC. We poor civil legal aid sewer rats suffer enforced cheapness, with some serious remedies. I hit £25K costs on a £200K claim and the LSC killed my grandmother.

By the way, your link to the times article points to my blog. Grateful for the potential traffic but…

]]>