I can’t speak for everyone but I wouldn’t apply that kind of pricing structure to someone who couldn’t afford it or wouldn’t get any value from it.
I’m an accountant and tax consultant.
Suppose a client contacted me, they’re semi-retired with very little income, they need to resolve some business affairs from years ago in order to collect a pension or whatever. I’m going to tell them the hackiest workaround to achieve their goal, and tell them how to do it themselves, hopefully without really having to charge them even for the consult.
On the other hand if someone wants to sell their family farm for several million dollars and wants to know the tax ramifications, they’re going to get the “particularly complex area” pricing, full written report, and so on and so forth.
I think any accountant and lawyer does this to some extent, if I’m honest.
There’s no obligation to take on any client. If a client has a problem to be solved but very little money, of course we’re reluctant to get involved. If it’s a situation where a potential solution is “you should call the tax office and tell them XYZ.” then that’s really just a polite way of telling them you don’t want to get involved.
Lawyers will work in a similar way, but are more likely to truncate their advice to “You should call <whatever regulator> and ask them what to do”.
I’ve often heard of lawyers explaining to potential clients that the costs in pursuing their matter would be unreasonable given the likelihood of success.
It’s not really altruism, although I’d like to think that I do my best to help people when I can. It’s really just a natural way of avoiding doing a heap of work for someone who can’t afford to pay you. Additionally, if you can make the client feel like you’ve helped them instead of just rejecting them then they will be more likely to recommend you to their friends and family who may be a better fit.
I can’t speak for everyone but I wouldn’t apply that kind of pricing structure to someone who couldn’t afford it or wouldn’t get any value from it.
I’m an accountant and tax consultant.
Suppose a client contacted me, they’re semi-retired with very little income, they need to resolve some business affairs from years ago in order to collect a pension or whatever. I’m going to tell them the hackiest workaround to achieve their goal, and tell them how to do it themselves, hopefully without really having to charge them even for the consult.
On the other hand if someone wants to sell their family farm for several million dollars and wants to know the tax ramifications, they’re going to get the “particularly complex area” pricing, full written report, and so on and so forth.
That’s good of you. I can’t imagine every accountant is so flexible. Lawyers straight up have to charge most of the time, I think.
It could also be a technical expert, or the government (in which case, refer to the lawyer).
I think any accountant and lawyer does this to some extent, if I’m honest.
There’s no obligation to take on any client. If a client has a problem to be solved but very little money, of course we’re reluctant to get involved. If it’s a situation where a potential solution is “you should call the tax office and tell them XYZ.” then that’s really just a polite way of telling them you don’t want to get involved.
Lawyers will work in a similar way, but are more likely to truncate their advice to “You should call <whatever regulator> and ask them what to do”.
I’ve often heard of lawyers explaining to potential clients that the costs in pursuing their matter would be unreasonable given the likelihood of success.
It’s not really altruism, although I’d like to think that I do my best to help people when I can. It’s really just a natural way of avoiding doing a heap of work for someone who can’t afford to pay you. Additionally, if you can make the client feel like you’ve helped them instead of just rejecting them then they will be more likely to recommend you to their friends and family who may be a better fit.