We also hired a lobbyist, but for my specific issue, the government actually asked for input prior to enforcement. That was nice, but didn’t help a bunch. At this point, the specific interest groups are waiting for a significant fine or suspension to use it as guidance and a test case.
Fingers crossed you might still be a bit more preliminary than that.
Then you can dig through the CFR, and whatnot. I hyperventilate at the mere mention of anything related to the CFR. To deal with my issue I think I spent about 50 hours, but I did also have to review a shit ton of consent orders which Diosa’s issue doesn’t even have for a modicum of guidance.
Wah! I can’t find it on Google. Enjoy your unpaid research time.
Do you have a lot of experience working with government agencies implementing legislation? At the statutory level the language is rarely specific enough to actually be the regulatory code that will govern an agencies day to day activities. Instead agencies develop regulations and procedures to comply with the law, by specifying exactly what they will do in specific situations.
It seems like what’s being talked about here is how one agency is looking to enforce part of the legislation. So you’re probably not going to find a black and white copy of this in the bill text. But rest assured, how Federal agencies choose to interpret statute and apply it are very important. I’m guessing the CFPB hasn’t actually created rules for doing any of this yet, and that’s why they’re having meetings with stakeholders. So there probably isn’t even any agency level regulations currently out there.
Funny enough, this is actually something I just suggested in the office a bit ago (after reading a few of the suggestions presented in this thread). Naturally, this is all just guessing, since we don’t know what the actual wording of the regulation will be (for instance, depending on how they define “complete” could throw a total wrench into this), but it’s a possibility.
Still. . . it just seems so. . . dishonest. I mean, we can of course explain the regulatory change to our incoming clients, so they know why the fee is seemingly so much more complicated than need be, but still. We like to make things easy and transparent. This adds a level of complication that is almost silly.
FWIW, years ago when the business first opened, we did the billable hour thing, but clients weren’t terribly keen on it. Quite understandably, people like to know what a particular service is going to cost them up front, so we adapted our flat fee based on that. Now, I suppose with your proposed solution, we could say upfront that the total fee is not to exceed X, just to put some comfort in their minds, but. . . yeah, unnecessary complications.
But if that’s the case, then it seems somewhat premature to be bitching about the effects this will have before the rules and regulations are actually laid out.
Even the OP seems to concede that the spate of dishonest practitioners in her field makes some tightening of regulations reasonable. And if the CFPB is actually having meetings with the stakeholders, then presumably these issues regarding payment models are going to be raised. Why don’t we see how they deal with the problem in the rules before accusing them of poor management or “unnecessary complications”?
My only argument in this thread is a “wait and see” argument. I don’t think that’s unreasonable.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but if you had to wait and see if your entirely livelihood and family business of 30 years was destroyed, you’d be prematurely bitching while you waited too.
I wouldn’t get too worked up over worst case scenarios just yet. Noone is out to get folks like you. They are trying to rein in abuse not destroy your industry, you might have more regulatory hoops to jump through but by your own admission, your industry has a lot of scumbags that could use a little regulation. If that regulation puts those scumbags out of buiness, its not like those tax problems disappear, those folks still need help and either the scumbag operations clean up their act (which would be good for everyone, you no longer have to compete with scumbags that overpromise and underdeliver) or they go out of business and you get a peice of that business. I would also be wary of lobbyists that keep presenting worst case scenarios, sometimes its like going to a lawyer after getting a speeding ticket and having them tell you that you might end up going to jail for 3 months. They might be trying to scare you into higher lobbying fees, scumbags exist in all industries, not just yours.
You’re right, of course— but isn’t this already through Congress? The issue we’re facing is on the enforcement step of the law, if I’m understanding everything correctly.
Yes, but those attorneys also bill (and collect) for expenses as they occur during those 10 years. Expenses lie Court fees, copying expenses, secretarial services, mileage & parking, etc. Effectively, it’s costing the attorney nearly nothing except his own time – all the expenses along the way are paid by the client.
What if something like that was done in your industry, DiosaBellissima?
Would that solve some of this problem?
I’m going to fully admit my ignorance here, but isn’t it that attorneys who work on contingency do it on cases where a monetary award is on the line for their clients? Like, insurance lawsuit attorneys work on contingency or Social Security attorneys work on contingency. . . but folks like family law attorneys don’t. Right? If I’m suing somebody for $100,000, my attorney will work on contingency for a percentage of that payout, but if I’m suing for a divorce or filing a bankruptcy, I generally have to pay for that out of a retainer, yes?
In our case, it’s not like the end result is the government paying our clients thousands upon thousands of dollars. It’s more like we’re making sure our clients can pay back their thousands and thousands of dollars to the government without being rendered homeless in the interim. On occasion, we certainly have clients who had their money levied illegally by the government and we have to get it returned, but I’d say that’s maybe 15% of our total business (a total WAG on that percentage).