For an industry that claims to make its livelihood on the definition, use and interpretation of words, in my opinion the legal industry has become rather lax in our use of the word ‘alternative’.
Big claim. So what do I mean by this?
Well, let’s look at the word ‘alternative’:- post GFC we hear the term ‘alternative’ almost daily in respect of ‘alternative fee arrangements’ (AFAS); and, ever increasingly, we now hear ‘alternative’ in respect of ‘alternative legal service providers’.
But how often do we ask – ‘alternative to what’?
Are we talking about ‘alternative’ to what we already have and do?
Because if that’s the case then we are not being true to our esprit de corps, namely ‘words have meaning’.
i.e. there is nothing ‘alternative’ in the term ‘alternative fee arrangements’. There are merely hourly rates, fixed fees and some sort of risk sharing arrangement fee agreement. In short, fee agreements.
And, as Heather Suttie eloquently put in her post today, there are no “alternative” legal service providers. There are just legal service providers (some of which, surprise surprise, serve different clientele).
But that’s just my take – as always, would be interested in your thoughts, views, feedback.
ps: the only thing I would add to Heather’s post is Pangea3 – 2004