An unnamed potential client recently sparked a discussion among legal professionals when they proposed a rather unconventional job offer for a tax attorney on Twitter. The individual was seeking a tax attorney with intermediate experience, and was willing to pay a nominal fee of $50 for their expertise over a span of six weeks.
The individual’s post was shared by a colleague of prominent tax attorney and commentator Steven Chung, and the content of it read:
My budget for this job is only $50. All I will ask is for the next month answer any questions that I have you will not have to do any work other than just answering questions. End of the year if I decide to go with you for answering my questions and we build a good relationship not only will you probably do my taxes for this year for my company. But you will also get to do my personal taxes and probably account keeping and future taxes in the company as well.
This proposition of essentially exchanging low-cost legal advice for potential future work is not unfamiliar in the legal profession, but it does raise eyebrows when placed in the perspective of value versus the offerings. The enquiry leaves a lot of questions unanswered – how many queries would there be? What complexities of tax codes would they traverse? This discounted rate versus the supposed burden is a weighing factor that surely crosses the minds of the attorneys witnessing this proposition.
The individual’s expectation for this extended dialogue, essentially a six-week consultation, relies heavily on an undefined promise of future business. This vague long-term prospect can pose a significant risk for tax attorneys especially when they are being solicited over public platforms without a clear idea of the potential client’s business scale or depth.
The proposal was met with widespread ridicule within legal circles, although one cannot discount the constraints of the traditional client-attorney model. The current model could sometimes place potential clients at a disadvantage as reforms in legal consultation fees may be needed. This post simply shines the spotlight on the current pain points.
What must be understood, however, is that placing such low value on a legal professional’s services, particularly specialized tax practitioners, sends out a negative message. Promises of future business are not tangible and offer no real incentive for professionals to step away from traditional business engagements.
The controversy surrounding the job posting has brought out the clear divide between consumers’ expectations and the realities of legal professionals’ operating costs. As Chung elaborately notes, it’s crucial for both parties to come up with ways of establishing relationships that aren’t one-sided, and that encourage mutual respect and understanding of each other’s needs and constraints.