In some respects, Billie Tarascio is someone who has simply had to change the way she does business due to the challenging economy.
However, she hopes that her new approach catches on enough to change the way people access something - legal service - when they desperately need it.
Under a business model called limited-scope representation, Tarascio & Del Vecchio PLLC has eschewed expensive retainer fees and offered representation on a more affordable a la carte basis.
"I've worked in various family law firms, and the traditional model didn't work. It didn't work for me or my clients," Tarascio said. "Basically, anyone who is not wealthy can't afford it ... I figured, let's lower the rate, and I'll do pay as you go. I began customizing what I was doing for clients."
Tarascio is licensed in Oregon and awaiting licensure in Arizona. She started the firm in September 2009 after moving to the Valley because her husband received a job here.
Much of the casework of the six-lawyer firm is devoted to family law. Fees for out-of-court services range from $99 to $129 an hour. The average hourly rate nationally in 2009 was $284, according to Incisive Legal Intelligence, an industry research firm.
In 2003, the American Bar Association and Arizona Supreme Court blessed limited-scope as an option for those who cannot afford full legal representation. Lawyers have offered limited-scope services - such as administering a will - but Tarascio said she is not aware of another local firm that does it exclusively.
"(A client may) need help with a particular problem, but just need someone to consult with - how to handle a particular item, like an explanation on what a motion for summary judgment means and how they should respond to it - and don't necessarily need total representation," said Patricia Sallen, director of special services and ethics for the State Bar of Arizona.
"It happens a lot in family-law or domestic-relations cases, where clients simply can't afford to have a lawyer do everything. You get as much as you can for the price you can pay."
A valid comparison would be to contracting home improvements - one does not need to pay for painting the walls if one can do it himself. However, there is an element of buyer beware because elements of the house tie together, and if one is not done right, the entire project suffers.
The same is true, Sallen said, of limited-scope representation.
"It has to be reasonable," Sallen said.
The firm's other partner is Allyson Del Vecchio, a former juvenile attorney in Connecticut.
"The ability to help people is why I went to law school in the first place," Del Vecchio said. "When I was working in Connecticut, I was not making a lot of money, but I was making a difference. That's what I wanted to do here ... With the economy the way it is, people having access to legal services is going to continue to be an issue. So, more models like this will start to pop up."
Tarascio said that her firm is considering offering full service for some clients. But limited-scope figures to be the overwhelming majority of the caseload for some time.
"We're new at this," Tarascio said. "The model is still adjusting. We're still working on how to make the model work, but I would love to see it expand and reach more people.
"We have no shortage of clients, so I guess that's the best affirmation of what we're doing. Our clients are grateful to have resources they didn't have before."
EmperorSmith posted at 11:49 am on Mon, Jan 3, 2011.
I don't condone the ambulance chasers. I do have a real estate attorney I deal with on need done basis.
Dale Whiting posted at 10:02 am on Mon, Jan 3, 2011.
Where Arizona lead the Nation about 25 years ago in permitting lawyers to advertize their services, this based on the assumption that advertizing rates and fees would hold the line [it did not] and make assess to and choice of legal counsel more open [few people are sufficiently sophisticated to be informed consumers], yet where practically the entire nation followed Arizona, that advertizing experiment failed to produce the hoped for results. Today, on TV we see deceptively simplistic spots advertizing promises amazingly illusory, hence impossible to enforce.
Perhaps limited representation would be a good idea. However, where Arizona also lead the Nation in permitting paralegals to license and provide document preparation services, what is to separate the consumer needing both legal advice on how to approach a problem and help with document preparation from those document preparers who impliedly hand out advice by filling out forms?
The problem is simple and history explains why. As bankruptcy and divorce become more common place, more and more people of less and less means need legal advice and help. Separating out from the alacarte section of the menu the "full representation" where the law firm questions the client, explains their options, gets the client's objectives and tears ahead to do the entire job places on the client much of the counseling services having a lawyer implies. You have to understand the law before you can ask informed questions.
And where we read that "Fees for out-of-court services range from $99 to $129 an hour" and that "The average hourly rate [for full service representation] nationally in 2009 was $284, according to Incisive Legal Intelligence, an industry research firm." one must ask "Where a paralegal charges perhaps $50 to $75 per hour and does everything except give legal advice, is the consumer savvy enough to appreciate the difference or will price dictate the decision?"
Furthermore, currently there is price competition in the paralegal document preparation industry. Services such as "Legal Zoom" undercut the somewhat savvy licensed paralegal. Those who choose Legal Zoom like services have to know the law as much as does an attorney. Filling out forms appropriately really requires competence.
Talk about "Slippery Slope!!!!" Good Luck, Arizona consumers!
However there is a better way, a way California has pioneered somewhat. Rather than permit people direct assess to the courts using attorneys, and subjecting them to the "adversarial process" where one lawyer does battle with another like knights in shining armor, those seeking divorce are allowed to file without counsel representing them [in fact are encouraged to do so] and then the spouses are interviewed by court retained attorneys who represent neither party. The mediator/facilitator represents neither, solicits the facts, then gives the party their opinion of the range of outcomes possible, trying to negotiate - as do the better judges - a settlement acceptable to both. Arizona has this option, too.
And in most courts in California as well as in Arizona, the Clerk of the Court has a helpful list of forms on their web site with instructions made simple enough that a case may be opened and often seen through to completion. Once opened, where both parties will give the court appointed mediator/facilitator a chance to weigh in, who really needs either document preparers or alacarte attorneys? Not as many as one might think!
Dale Whiting posted at 9:52 am on Mon, Jan 3, 2011.
Where Arizona lead the Nation about 25 years ago in permitting lawyers to advertize their services, this based on the assumption that advertizing rates and fees would hold the line [it did not] and make assess to and choice of legal counsel more open [few people are sufficiently sophisticated to be informed consumers], yet where practically the entire nation followed Arizona, that advertizing experiement failed to produce the hoped for results. Today, on TV we see deceptively simplistic spots advertizing promises amazingly illusory, hence impossible to enforce.
Perhaps limited representation would be a good idea. However, where Arizona also lead the Nation in permitting paralegals to license and provide document preparation services, what is to seperate the consumer needing both legal advice on how to approach a problem and help with document preparation from those document preparors who impliedly hand out advice by filling out forms?
The problem is simple and history explains why. As bankruptcy and divorse become more common place, more and more people of less and less means need legal advice and help. Seperating out from the alacarte section of the menu the "full representation" where the law firm questions the client, explains their options, gets the client's objectives and tears ahead to do the entire job places on the client much of the counselling services having a lawyer implies. You have to understand the law before you can ask informed questions.
And where we read that "Fees for out-of-court services range from $99 to $129 an hour" and that "The average hourly rate [for full service representation] nationally in 2009 was $284, according to Incisive Legal Intelligence, an industry research firm." one must ask "Where a paralegal charges perhaps $50 to $75 per hour and does everything except give legal advice, is the consumer savey enough to appreciate the difference or will price dictate the decision?"
Furthermore, currently there is price competition in the paralegal document preparation industry. Services such as "Legal Zoom" undercut the somewhat savey licensed paralegal. Those who choose Legal Zoom like services have to know the law as much as does an attorney. Filling out forms appropriately really requires competence.
Talk about "Slippery Slope!!!!" Good Luck, Arizona consumers!
However there is a better way, a way California has pioneered somewhat. Rather than permit people direct assess to the courts using attorneys, and subjecting them to the "adversarial process" where one lawyer does battle with another like knights in shining armour, those seeking divorse are allowed to file without counsel representing them [in fact are encouraged to do so] and then the spoouses are interviewed by court retained attorneys who represent neither party. The mediator represents neither, solicites the facts, then gives the party their opinion of the range of outcomes possible, trying to negiciate - as do the better judges - a settlement acceptable to both. Arizona has this option, too.
And in most courts in California as well as in Arizona, the Clerk of the Court has a helpful list of forms on their web site with instructions made simple enough that a case may be opened and often seen through to completion. Once opened, where both parties will give the court appointed mediator a chance to weigh in, who really needs either document preparors or alacarte attorneys.