Letters (June 01, 2001)

Dear Editor,

I have been provided with a copy of Paul Iacono’s article from your April 2001 issue. He talks about the “menu” approach to billing.

Over the past year the writer took this one step further and actually prepared a menu with fixed prices for each service and three levels of expertise, depending on what the insurer wanted.

It seem to the writer this would allow the insurance company to cap their costs, specify the defence they require and there would be no incentive for the defence lawyer to “churn the file” and keep it open longer than necessary.

I personally met with many claims managers and adjusters and circulated copies of the menu to many others.

After spending most of the last year trying to promote this new approach to billing, I can advise all the insurance people I spoke to either said nothing, chose to avoid my follow-up calls or politely stated they were not interested. There were only concerned about the “bottom line”.

I remain convinced since this is a method by which many other industries are able to control the cost of labour, that such a system would work well in insurance defence work. I can only conclude the insurance industry, at least at the present, is only interested in the lowest possible price, regardless of the quality of service.

This past summer I saw a sign in a garage in Jolliet, Illinois, which I suggest should be posted on the letterhead of every insurance defence firm. It read as follows:

“You can have it good and fast, but not cheap,

you can have it fast and cheap, but not good,

you can have it cheap and good, but not fast,

how can we help you?”

Yours very truly,

R.K. McCartney

Paul Lee Barristers & Solicitors