‘Fightback’ scheme seeks to raise £2m for ad campaign
A personal injury solicitor is setting up a panel of firms to ‘stand up and fight back’ against non-lawyer entrants to the legal market.
Paul Roberts, founder of north-west firm Porters, has created eLawyers, a network of 8-10 firms in each practice area in nine regions of England and Wales.
Joining fees paid by each firm will be pooled to fund a £2m television advertising campaign in the next four months.
Roberts says the scheme will help solicitors to ‘stand up and fight back’ against pressures from legislation and incoming alternative business structures.
‘It’s either this or be crushed and rolled over by investors currently not within the profession,’ he said. ‘There is a clear threat from non-solicitors so this is us throwing some money into the pot and being stronger together.
‘The panel allows exclusivity for the firms that join and means they can keep their own brand and identity.’
Roberts declined to say how much each firm will pay, but each regional co-operative is expected to raise around £250,000.
He said the scheme was able to avoid any breach of the forthcoming ban on referral fees because payments were not directly linked to the number of cases.
ELawyers, which already has a call centre in Nottingham, started its appeal for solicitor firms last month. Although Porters will be a member, Roberts said there were spaces for other personal injury firms to join.
Comments
Unsustainable Business Model
Whilst this is a valiant effort, such business models are unlikely to be unsustainable particularly when the larger Insurance Companies go live with their Direct Claimant Capture Portal's and their own marketing campaigns which are likely to receive Government funding.
Perhaps the point has been
Perhaps the point has been missed here. This isn't just about personal injury law. It's about employment law, conveyancing, criminal, civil lit, commercial, immigration, wills and probate, insolvency, prof neg and so on.... it's a full service product, consisting of panels made up of firms who are specialists in each field.
It's about solicitors having a strong, organised co-operative marketing brand that they can use to market their services to compete with bigger non-solicitor investors.
The insurers may well have their marketing ideas but perhaps the idea is that with no referral fees, there should be more work coming in via traditional methods, such as TV, radio, internet and so on.
I deal with mostly
I deal with mostly residential and commercial property and I completely agree with this approach however I don't think that it will deter many from instructing firms who are full of unqualified staff. There are a large number of estate agents out there who are linked to such companies who push the clients into using them and all these years later notwithstanding the poor service given due to lack of knowledge and expertise, they are still making their millions. The same applies to those accident management companies who make their clients use these conveyor belt personal injury "lawyer" companies. I really hope that your message reaches a lot of people and moreover, that they actually take the advice on board and proceed with their matters accordingly. It isn't just the clients who suffer, it is also the fully qualified solicitors on the other side who end up tearing their hair out. I wholeheartedly wish you all the best of luck with your campaign.
You forget that some of these
You forget that some of these companies might actually employ people who want to give a good service. The luddite lawyers who peruse these pages automatically assume, playing up to the stereotype of the inherently pessimistic and cynical solicitor, that all low-cost ABSs will be offering cowboy-level service with no quality of which to speak. They talk in this way because, quite understandably, they feel insecure about their position in the market, and thus threatened by new entrants.
But what's to stop a new entrant providing a quality service at low cost, just as Pareto Law recruits graduates for a meagre salary (but actually brilliant compared most other current graduates' salaries or dare I say wages, which is why it works) and sends them into sales roles to increase business?
We already see legions of paralegal graduates happy to work for £14-15k in hope of better money. After a while they'll be hardwired to be happy on £20-25k to offer the kind of expertise a qualified lawyer used to offer for a £40-50k salary. Why? Because jobs that previously offered £25k will now offer £15k, so the £25k job is the new £40-50k job. Supply and demand... Legal knowledge has a price, and that price is too high. Hence the talk of adapting. Solicitors have to accept the golden age is over, and it's no longer so lucrative. And when times iz tough, it's time to have a hard think about why you entered the law in the first place. Was it the money? Then what are you still doing here? Retire. Was it for the good of society? I'm sceptical that this is ever a reason, but for the sake argument: then you need to adapt and accept that you're going to be earning much less than you were doing.
I'd love to know what you do
I'd love to know what you do for a living, Anon. I'd guess marketing / sales, but please do let us know.
My guess
A banker
I've considered a career in
I've considered a career in banking, and I have done some sales. Does it come off pretty well?
But really, either of you care to address my point?
I smell cherry picking
What law firm in their right mind would commit £250,000 to another law firm to prospect on their behalf?
Good Luck.
If you read the article
If you read the article again, it's a co-operative. No one firm puts in £250,000. Solicitor co-operatives are widely believed to be the best way forward.
Elawyers
Am I missing something? How does this differ from IL4U ? and similar ...
All areas of law are covered,
All areas of law are covered, not just PI. You also get exclusivity for your area of law in your entire region of England or Wales. So only one panel member for each area of law per region, so no competition within the panel.
It's also not profit-led, ie, fees aren't taken from the money that is invested, like some other brands. All money invested goes in to modest running costs and the rest, in to media advertisement.. There's no tie in or even requirement re branding, shop frontage, websites etc, maintaining your time-served identity.
What's to stop the CC getting
What's to stop the CC getting involved due to anti-competition etc?
Political Fightback
Sadly what is needed as echoed on other blogs in the context of whiplash claims and MPS is a political fightback.
This needs to be coordinated on a national basis
Political Fightback
Exactly my point. How many law firms can indeed in the present climate raise
250K. If I have this kind of fund I will be applying for an ABS status. Oh! yes.
I am forced to ask the question, why have we come to this point where individual
solicitors and law firms are now compelled to find micro solutions to this problem?
I though we had a collective platform that spoke on our behalf and defended our interest.
Hmm! I wonder.
Nobody has to commit £250k.
Nobody has to commit £250k. Read the article again.
This is simply solicitors coming together and working as a team. It's very environmentally friendly.
Political Fightback
I absolutely agree. A £2m ad campaign is peeing in the proverbial wind. Where do we think the costs cutting war was won?
We need a political lobby. A decent PR firm to get the message out to Joe Public and Parliament that the insurance industry and this Government are dirty. They fight dirty, buy policy and deceive the people.
We can forget about The Law Society, they're a complete waste of time and should resign and disband for their shameful, spineless posturing in the face of a vicious and underhanded campaign against our profession.
I agree entirely. A
I agree entirely. A political fightback would be fantastic. Now let's just sit back and wait for that to happen.
All ventures that bring competition to the door of insurance companies should be greeted with positive enthusiasm, particularly when that competition is brought by solicitors working together.
Political Fightback
I absolutely agree. A £2m ad campaign is peeing in the proverbial wind. Where do we think the costs cutting war was won?
We need a political lobby. A decent PR firm to get the message out to Joe Public and Parliament that the insurance industry and this Government are dirty. They fight dirty, buy policy and deceive the people.
We can forget about The Law Society, they're a complete waste of time and should resign and disband for their shameful, spineless posturing in the face of a vicious and underhanded campaign against our profession.
Your brand is very weak
We have just looked at all the domain names that are almost identical to yours.
Poor brand. We will not be investing.
Elawyers
I'm starting one too, just let me collect 4 million lawyers all paying 5k each and I'll come back with a naff tv advert that nobody will watch.
Elawyers
I'm starting one too, just let me collect 4 million lawyers all paying 5k each and I'll come back with a naff tv advert that nobody will watch.
Fightback scheme.
Most law firms haven't got a clue when it comes to marketing which is why ABS's are going to go for it. They see a lucrative market they can access because they already have a list of clients they can sell legal services to and another lot of prospects they can market to cost-effectively.
£2M on TV is going to be an interesting amount to spend.
My prediction is that it won't pay back in terms of fees.
And as there is no brand involved it won't build brand equity (the reason a lot of firms advertise on TV in the first place).
Therefore I'd take the £2m or whatever is raised and invest it in offline marketing that is measurable and online marketing that is measurable. And of course I'd start by testing...so £1000 here and £1000 there and ramp up QUICKLY when it is proven to work. (Whatever the channel).
An example of why this money is likely to be blown is that many PI firms are already wasting £30 per click on Google because they have not got a clue whether that click turns into a call - which is the ultimate lead you need. Form filling is all well and good but false data, getting hold of the individual and then a marketing process to follow up a less than qualified prospect is so much more difficult than dealing with a telephone caller that has read and understood the service on offer and feels compelled to call for more information.
Anyone that is advertising or contemplating getting involved in spending anything must understand testing and tracking before investing hard-won money.
Tools are available to do this. I am always happy to advise - for no cost because I hate to see people wasting money on things they aren't experts in...and particularly if it is someone else's money!
A pilot of this scheme was
A pilot of this scheme was conducted in December 2012. The response was exceptional and the ROI over 500%. It was conducted with exactly what you say in mind.
The brand is eLawyers and will be advertised as such.
Moaners
I wouldn't let the defeatist's on here alarm you Paul. I hope it goes well for you. I understand what you are trying to do.
I have been involved in TV advertising on behalf of firms and the payback is very good providing there is 'optimistic support' there to convert the opportunities.
Just dont waste the cash on being overly infatuated with creating a 'brand' like Mr Holt and buying prime 7.30pm slots when people go and make tea.
TV advertising is very measurable.
Thanks Graham, at last a
Thanks Graham, at last a forward thinker!
TV slots are allocated according to the needs ot the panel members. Some clients watch TV during the day, some during the night.
See, there's method in the madness.
Appreciate your comments.
Moaners 2
but you would say that wouldn't you with your marketing company!
No
"....oh those marketers selling marketing, Ive never had to do marketing. Clients just come to me. They've heard about my reputation and my professional and technical competence and then I send them my bill...."
R.I.P
GIVE IT TO GRAYLING
SURELY THIS MONEY WOULD BE BETTER OFF BEING TO GRAYLING AS A WAY OF GETTING HIM TO LEAVE THE SMALL CLAIMS LIMIT ALONE.
HE HAS SHOWN THAT HE CAN BE BROUGHT AND SOLD EASILY. HE'D DO ANYTHING FOR A COUPLE OF POUND. MAYBE EVEN A SEASON TICKET TO HIS BELOVED HOME TOWN FOOTBALL CLUB MUFC THROWN IN AS WELL.
Political Fightback
I absolutely agree. A £2m ad campaign is peeing in the proverbial wind. Where do we think the costs cutting war was won?
We need a political lobby. A decent PR firm to get the message out to Joe Public and Parliament that the insurance industry and this Government are dirty. They fight dirty, buy policy and deceive the people.
We can forget about The Law Society, they're a complete waste of time and should resign and disband for their shameful, spineless posturing in the face of a vicious and underhanded campaign against our profession.
Entirely agree! A proper
Entirely agree!
A proper campaign could be funded by the sale of the effectively redundant Chancery Lane palace.
Why should lawyers be competing with insurance owed law firms
I keep saying it, but an insurer owning a law firm is the biggest conflict I have ever seen, ow can the SRA allow it, judge and jury of your own industry, can it really just be ignored?
If the small claims limit goes up, Grayling and his pals open the door to CMC's all over (including India) to run PI claims on contingency basis, why would you bother with all the compliance and insurances we have to pay for (costing hundreds of thousands per year) if you could run it as a CMC and close up shop and reopen under a different name whenever you want.
If he wants to do that, then we would run PI outside the law firm, if we could get any after the CMC's grab it all and run it themselves from India or wherever, in fact it would be quite funny, in a sick way!
Sounds just like
Sounds just like qualitysolicitors, in what way does it differ? Abs may not necessarily be a bad thing if costs are kept down which cannot be said for many firms, roll on April!
Not at all like QS but I
Not at all like QS but I understand the comparison some may make.
It's owned and run by practicising solicitors. QS, I understand, require a fee for being part of the panel. Here, there is no fee. All monies go directly in to running and advertising. There's no wastage It's a co-operative, a syndicate of solcitors, coming together under a strong brand. eLawyers.co.uk is something I have been approached for many times and each time the answer is the same. No.
There will no "hundreds of outlets nationwide" (paraphrased). There will be 8 - 10 in each region of England and Wales. Each specialist area of law gets exclusivity, meaning they get 100% of all enquiries in their field. So take a family lawyer in the North West. Hundreds of TV / Radio advertisements in the North West. Whenever anyone in the NW contacts eLawyers for a family lawyer in the NW, that panel member gets every single enquiry for an entire year off the back of hundreds of TV/Radio ads, all for a relatively modest investment.
eLawyers does not profiteer from the panel by taking fees.
There appears to be a lot of confusion about what eLawyers is. Best thing to do is see for yourself. There's information at http://panel.elawyers.co.uk
Paul, I think it is
Paul,
I think it is commendable to have taken the initiative. From many of the comments on here it is clear a) that too many of the profession can't read an article fully and b) that many of those commenting are still too busy war against the inevitable to plan to do something else.
I have concerns that the development of the elawyer brand may be too late given the established brands entering the market and those that took similar initiatives a little earlier. However, the logic of combining resources for brand development to combat the larger better funded entrants is unquestionable.
However, from my experience, many small regional firms often feel that their local brand strength is such that, in their local market area, they can compete with the national brands. Many consider lender panels, PII premiums and cost reforms as the major risks to their practices rather than the brand strength of national firms. Obviously for those firms competing nationally that is not always the case.
Will Elawyer be looking to operate as a buying group as well in anyway? If not I would recommend that you look at it as potentially an easy way to add value to members beyond the combined brand.
Best of luck.
Thanks Matt, really
Thanks Matt, really appreciate your comments.
I agree with much if not all of what you say.
Many comments are nagative but it is those sorts of views that are widespread within the profession and may be an indicator of why it is where it is..
Yes there are challenges ahead but rather than complaining about the world and his dog but doing nothing about, it is high time somebody stood up and did something positive.
I take on board the timing. The timing may be a smidgen later than what I would ideally have liked but I don't think there is anything like this product out there which has the strengh of brand and for which can call itself a true co-operative. What I would say is that this has taken months in the planning, the idea has been there for years. eLawyers.co.uk was acquired in 2006. The infrastructure is in place, it is supported by a couple of large businesses who are suppliers in the industry in terms of organisational co-operation.
I say to people all of the time, name me a well known solicitors firm that you see on the TV other than personal injury firms. The answer is always the same, "I don't know any", and is usually followed by "yes I've never actually realised that".
Well shortly they will. If people aren't part of it, so be it and good luck to them, genuinely.
Thanks for the positive post Matt.
I agree with the comment
I agree with the comment peeing in the proverbial wind. The general public will not care one bit about the plight of lawyers. So there is no point in trying to get them on side.
Optimists make things happen.
Optimists make things happen. Pessimists, who often refer to themselves as "realists" but are actually pessimists, stop things from happening.
Good luck to you in any event.
Creative and Pro-active
I have two initiatives that can offer help. The Bold Legal Group www.boldlegalgroup.co.uk and Legal Eagle (www.alegaleagle.co.uk). Early days, but you don't need millions of £s. You need to be creative, pro-active and understand the concept of strength in numbers.
Paul - I think that elawyers
Paul - I think that elawyers has recently run an ad campaign on TV for personal injury claims. Is it on the back of that that you think that this is a viable way forward?
As I am sure you will know from your recent dip into TV advertising it is very expensive and the likes of NAH are spending in excess of £6 million pa. It is also very difficult running a 30 second ad that gets your message accross when you are looking at covering various areas of law.
Why an ad?
Rather than an ad for such a fund of only 2mil I would suggest the making a documentary to show the great British public how they are being conned both by the Government AND the insurance industry
reputation
Also please don't forget the insurance & finance industry has an even worse reputation than lawyers
Reality check on brands
Problem with all of this is that there is little point in trying to be part of a brand when it is in fact only a "sub-brand".
The main brand, being that of a solicitor, is the one that needs repair, and paying large or any fees to a organisation is not going to gain traction to put this right with the public or elsewhere on a national, regional or local basis.
Its only serves to feed a narrative that there is no longer a profession and all solicitors are on the take and trying to sell you something and nothing more.
This is a strategic mistake.
There has been a direct correlation between increased commercialisation and loss of standing for solicitors in general encouraging politicians to treatr the profession with barely concealed disdain
I agree. Does the public
I agree. Does the public really want to see even more ads from solicitors.
Elawyers Brand Very Weak
Your Brand = www.elawyers.co.uk
Other brands with the same search term ! Google it.
www.elawyer.com.my
e-lawyersonline.com
elawyer.net.au
elawyers.co.nz
elawyers.com.au
How would you explain to your members that you are protecting your brand or their investment with this basic schoolboy error.
Was this scheme thought up on a Friday night in a pub somewhere on the back of a fag packet?
I think that after looking at your financial status as a business this is a get rich quick scheme to furnish your own ends
Www.elawyers.co.uk Ltd is an Active business incorporated in England & Wales on 9th August 2006.
Their business activity is recorded as Solicitors.
Www.elawyers.co.uk Ltd is run by 2 current members. and 1 company secretary.
2 shareholders own the total shares within the company. It is not part of a group.
The latest Annual Accounts submitted to Companies House for the year up to 31/01/2012 reported 'cash at bank' of £626,931, 'liabilities' worth £201,481, 'net worth' of £621,736 and 'assets' worth £798,632.
Www.elawyers.co.uk Ltd's risk score was amended on 02/03/2013.
Enough said.
Making a quick Buck
now really doesnt the word "elawyer" relate to more internet adverts, !!! might as well pay some IT Firm to make a good website and get the work in yourself...for cheap... who agrees put your hands up !!!!
Lawyers Could Be So Daft?
I am very surprised at the daft comments posted by some daft 'lawyers' here. Instead of appreciating what Porters has done here and recognizing that some people are trying to prevent the legal profession from being hijacked and thrown open to every comer many comments are simply lopsided. Without anyone doing anything it is a matter of time before the profession becomes no different from the plumbing or cowboy builders profession.
Imagine if every solicitor firm in UK can make a voluntary contribution ranging from £1000 to £5000 to this cause!
Who is daft?
Err have you read the posts properly?
Learn lessons from the Insurance Sector
Personal lines insurance (home/car/travel for example) has seen the same degree of competition created by investment driven capital allocation, new entrants focused on price as their USP and the result is an extremely price sensitive consumer with little loyalty to brand or historic relationships. It is undoubted that the line of assault from 'Tesco' style entrants to the PI & Property law arena will be based around price of their service.
I would urge existing firms to think about how we improve the public's appreciation of the value of Professional service from qualified staff. Like Insurance, legal services are difficult for the consumer to appreciate before purchase, it is not like buying a hoover where you can feel and touch the product before money parts hands. If selling legal services just becomes an issue of price then we are all doomed, including the customer themselves!
Ironically one of the main costs of motor insurance claims - the credit hire charge - was an opportunity provided to private business by insurers trying to save costs. Insurers started outsourcing replacement vehicles for their customers following an accident, putting the service out to new 'credit hire' providers. It did not take the new entrants long to see that they could make a huge profit by selling credit-hire to the non-fault party and recovering costs against the at fault party. Insurers had inadvertently opened the door to spiraling claims costs by trying to save money in order to sell their product at lower price!
I wonder what the downside of the price competition will be in legal services?
Great Scheme
It is a shame that people are keen to focus on the potential problems of a scheme such as this rather than making positive contributions. Have you all given up? It also seems that those with negative views had failed to read the information posted by Paul Roberts re contributions to the scheme. I see this as great idea and one that will allow smaller firms to benefit from the advertising campaigns usually only available to large national organisations and at a fraction of the cost. The cost of advertising on TV is very high but there are significant economies of scale benefits available by advertising as suggested. Good on you!!
e-quality
This is a commercial answer to a political problem - the two do not mix very well.
I have lost count of the number of associations/brands/ABSs/betting shop owners that are going to "take the market by storm" or lead the fightback or be the dominant provider of legal services etc etc.
It is a very crowded but reducing market place.
The problems we face are fundamentally a lack of leadership by the Law Society and/or a hostile Goverment and entering into commercial alliances to promote a brand, no matter how well intentioned is not the answer.
The problem with this is that
The problem with this is that the majority of solicitors dont't have a clue how to market themselves. The fact that they are planning on pouring £2m into TV advertising is evidence of this.
Effective marketing runs like a golden thread through all business operations. Solcitors seem to love the idea of artificially seperating marketing and their business. I'm a marketing consultant specialising in law firms and clients are always trying to find a new "scheme" to avoid the truth that times have changed and legal services are now as much a commodity as a sandwich from tesco is.
I will do it
Here's a thought. I know a fair bit about marketing and bringing work via SEO, social media etc. I give lectures for MBL on it and have spoken at APIL annual conference. If three of you who are thinking of putting £25k a year into this scheme want to pool resources and give the money to me, I will do all your marketing to include SEO, webdesign and content, article marketing, social media, produce videos, set up youtube channel etc and I will even use £1000.00 a month on ppc for you.
So that would be 13.5 hours a week or 640 hours of marketing expertise a year for £25,0000,
How does that sound ?
lose a nought
You need to lose a nought from your figure pal.
Come May, there will a huge amount of legally qualified 'marketers' willing to do the work for £12k.
Alas, if everyone goes for a
Alas, if everyone goes for a PPC and SEO solution the associated marketing costs will escalate.
I have personal expertise and experience in the legal marketing sector - at its height my firm was generating 1,000 cases per day
There will always be claims out there - the real issue is how to get them cheaply!
The strategy adopted by the
The strategy adopted by the Law Society/APIL/MASS seems to have been flawed with hindsight.
Lobbying of MP's as some were advocating may have been more fruitful
Lawyers should now get together and pressure these same MPs to introduce a cap on the amount insurers can charge for motor premiums
CFA / DBA
Looking at the earlier thread on the threat posed by CMCs, I note that 50% deduction by a CMC (as opposed to 25% by a solicitor) has been mooted as a possibility.That is not correct, is it? There is a maximum deduction now of 25% from a client's damages permissible in PERSONAL INJURY work (be that by a solicitor or CMC) (and as opposed to other work covered by the DBA regs). Moreover, as I understand it, CMCs would be completely reliant upon pre-med offers (as opposed to putting cases through the portal). If the SCL goes to £5K, then solicitors might just as well divest themselves of regulation for most PI claims, form CMCs and take a straight percentage.