Ian Hu
on money and lawyers, financial independence, contingency fees, and litigation funding
The podcast version. It also plays in any podcast app.
Transcript
5,406 words · about 24 min to readMark the passages that stay with you: press the number beside a paragraph. Marks are anonymous, and the most-marked passages help choose what goes into the book.
To hear a passage, press ▸ under its number; it plays just that paragraph.
See a misspelled name or a wrong word? Select it and press Report an error, or email the correction. The transcript is machine-made; corrections are welcome.
Hello everyone. This is another episode of Yunusov Law YouTube show, and I'm really glad to have one of my past guests here today again. He was kind enough to accept my invitation to return to the show. His name is Ian Hu. He's right here, and I will just let him give a brief intro. Introduce himself. He probably did it, he did it already before in the previous episode. Let him do it again.
Hi all, I'm currently a civil litigation and estates lawyer at Carroll Haight Chown, and I've done a bunch of other things before that. So look me up on LinkedIn, I'll add you.
And you know what, I opened your LinkedIn profile before this interview and I just want to quickly tell the audience that you studied in 3 philosophy programs before law school. You went to Western where you got your honors BA with distinction in philosophy. You got your master's in philosophy from U of T, and you also studied for PhD degree in philosophy in Rice University in the States, in Texas. So you were really serious about philosophy, obviously, but then law must have tempted you away from philosophy, and you practiced law since 2008. So you are past the 10-year mark and you cannot be referred to as a junior lawyer anymore. Congratulations, Ian.
Thanks.
I know that this is, this is a strange profession. If you're under the 10-year mark, some people consider you a junior lawyer, right? You're not anymore, so good for you. But this interview is not going to be about philosophy. At least not directly. This interview will be about money, and the reason I want to talk to you about money is because you founded a Face Group— I'm sorry, you founded a Facebook group about money for lawyers. Can you tell us a little bit about that, Ian? Thank you.
Yeah, it's called Canadian Lawyers Personal Finance, and we have about 800 members now. Every day it's growing, it seems, to the point where, you know, it's— I grow 10% every month, it seems. So I expect it to double by the end of the year. And it started because my wife is a physician, and the physicians have 20,000 members on the Physicians Financial Independence Forum. For him. So I thought the lawyer should have one too, damn it.
That's a good enough reason as any. And besides rivalry with your wife or with doctors, not sure which one it was, have you ever, have you always had particular interest in money? And I'm not talking about like everybody is interested in money, of course, right?
So it's an interesting question, Pulat. The answer is no. And I never gave it a thought until— and I've only sort of recently realized this by looking back. I was studying philosophy and PhD, and I was funded by the program. And I had a little bit of student debt, mostly because tuition was low in those days. And one day I realized— it might not be one day, but I came to realize that I would never be able, as a philosophy professor, probably not a tenure-track philosophy professor given how I was doing, ever be able to have a family and raise them the way I was raised. And I thought, I can't be going day by day eating rice and canned fish every day.
That's no way to live. And so I thought, that's what brought me into law, purely financial reasons.
You would agree that there are different perceptions of wealth. I would say that very few people in Canada are at risk of eating rice and canned fish every day. There are definitely people like that, and we should be concerned. This is not just, if we know about people like that, if we know that people like that exist, we should be concerned and society has to do something about it, right? But this is a question of poverty rather than wealth, right? So I respect that your initial motivation was to avoid poverty, Right? And I believe that a lot of people who became wealthy eventually, they started by simply trying to escape poverty. But wealth is something else.
And in this respect, I will throw out a contention and you tell me if I'm wrong. You can never be wealthy if you're a lawyer, if that's what you do.
Okay the— I would say you're wrong. I think it's— and it's based on the definition of wealth, wealthy, that I like, which is basically getting to a point where you are financially independent. And what that means is getting to a point where you don't have to work. So that definition of wealth can be attained by anyone in any profession. You just have to spend little enough and save large enough that you can meet your expenses for the rest of your life. So you might reach that at 50, you might reach that at 70, but at some point you're going to reach, reach that where your savings are enough to last you until you die without having to work.
Ian, you would agree that to— and I'm sorry for this slightly cross-examination style of questioning here, it's just a very interesting topic. You would agree that to meet that standard that you just described, there are two ways. One is, of course, to increase your income. And the other one is to reduce your expenses. And the extreme case of reducing expenses and people who actually meet your standard of wealth are people who live on the street. So, and again, I say that without any sarcasm, and I think that poverty is a real issue. Even when we speak about wealth, we should never forget about poverty. And even in a country like Canada, which is one of the wealthiest in the world.
Poverty is a tremendous issue, huge issue. But returning to wealth, may I offer another definition of wealth or another definition of the standard of wealth and bounce it off of you and see what you think about it. So this definition that I'm about to offer doesn't concern expenses, because your definition is centered on expenses, meeting your expenses. The definition that I want to offer concerns investment. So to me, wealth is not meeting your expenses. To me, wealth is meeting your investment objectives, being able to fund, finance projects that matter to you. And of course you work because, you know, you are passionate about projects, about things that you invest your money in, and you work by overseeing them, by selecting them.
So there is nothing like, I don't work anymore. Maybe there is a different definition of work at play here, but the standard is not about meeting my expenses, The standard is about, can I fund things that really are important to me, even if they are related to philanthropy, even if they are related to business, even if they are related to politics. So this is, this is an alternative definition. What do you think about it?
Yeah I think you're talking you're relating money with, with the power to do things, and and that, that's certainly one way to look at it. When I think about wealth, I think about your net worth, okay? So what are your assets minus your liabilities? And if you take your assets minus your liabilities, and are you able to support yourself until you die without having to work again? Now, if, if let's say you have zero net worth, right? You take your assets, you minus your liabilities, and you're left with zero. But you make a million dollars a year in income. You have all the power that you're talking about, right, Pulat? If you're making a million dollars a year in income and you're spending, you know, and let's just call this after-tax income, and you're spending half a million on the charity that you want to run and the other half a million on, on the Lamborghini that you drive and the and the sailboat that you want to race and all of that.
Then you have power, right? You have power with your ability to make income. The problem there though is, what if you're sick? What if something happens to you? What if you have a family? Well, the second something happens to you, you're in debt and you may very well be in very deep debt very, very quickly. And so I don't view that as wealth worth having, if you define worth— wealth in terms of the income that you can generate and the power that you can have by spending that income. Because you don't actually have power. What you are is you're chained to these projects that you have. You're chained to these goals that you have and you're chained to your income-producing job.
The second you stop producing that income, you lose all of the things that you love. That doesn't seem to me to be a good place to be money-wise.
Interesting. Let's talk about some specific examples. I know that you worked in personal injury for years. How do personal injury lawyers make money? And I'm not talking about you specifically. You don't have to talk about yourself, but I know that you understand the industry.
Yeah, yeah, sure. Most personal injury lawyers make money either, probably I would say by contingency, which means you settle a file for, well, a person gets hurt, they come to you to sue the person that did the hurting. For pain and suffering, for the care that you're going to need, for any loss of income, and then you resolve that file usually by settling it and very rarely by going to trial, and then you get a percentage of that settlement. That's how most personal injury lawyers make money. Some of them are— do make money on an hourly basis, so they just bill like any other lawyer.
Is it easy to make money as a personal injury lawyer?
I would say these days it's not easy. There's a lot of competition. It's not like it used to be. The insurers are better supported. They have their own legal teams in-house, and the public has in some ways turned to, toward a healthy amount of skepticism in regards to such files.
You know, to me, wealth is about scalability. Let me explain. So this is connected to my original statement where I put it to you that lawyers are never really rich. So to be rich, you need to be able to leverage some kind of scale, right? For example, you sell a product that potentially millions of people can buy, and this added value on this product gets multiplied by potentially an endless number of purchases, right? So this is scale. A lot of wealth in the world was created by using scale like that. And if you sell service, and specifically your own service, Basically, when you sell time, that scale doesn't exist because there are only 24 hours a day.
Although I've heard stories of lawyers billing more than that, but it's extremely rare. So,
so the business model there, Pulat, is to hire people, young lawyers to do the work for you, and you get a chunk of their billings.
Right, that's absolutely right. But I would submit that even that is not scalable compared to selling Coca-Cola cans, for example, right? Or something like that. So how many young associates can you really hire? And also, with every associate you hire, you increase complexity in your organization because you scale by adding human beings. And you scale— yes, we can cover that with insurance, but at some point, you know, people make mistakes, people leave, there is attrition. And even one associate, even a young associate, cannot bill more than, I would say, 14 hours a day. I've heard of people who bill in that range. And even the biggest firms in the world have only thousands of lawyers.
So this is a very different level of scale. And besides, if you have a huge firm with hundreds of lawyers, you also have hundreds of profit-sharing partners. Right. Yeah.
I mean, it's, it's, it's a, it's a, it's a, I mean, whenever you scale something, you have other problems. Right. But it is scalable. And one thing that lawyers have an advantage of is the monopoly. So since you have a monopoly on the services, your margins are high. And so you can, even if you're unable to scale by 1,000 lawyers, and there are law firms that are that big at the same time, your margin is so big that, or can be large enough that you're pulling in very high income.
Very interesting, but how do you get that income in the first place? Can you give me some examples, your favorite examples of successful lawyer marketing? I mean, you've had a long career already by now.
Sorry, just got my kid here. Yeah, I mean, certainly we all know about some firms that do a lot of radio and television and marketing in sports arenas, and they certainly seem to be able to draw in a lot of clients. If you can draw in more clients than you are able to do yourself, then you can scale simply by adding another lawyer.
That's right. And I'm observing an interesting pattern here. To achieve even that level of scale that you are advocating for law firms as possible, you need volume, you need to draw clients in, in large numbers, and then you need to add associates to support these clients. So essentially, I'm aware of two types of law practices, value and volume. So personal injury would fall under volume and commercial litigation probably under value. So—
It depends. If you do a certain kind of personal injury law where you're only handling files where there are, where people are very, very severely injured, right? Massive brain injuries or, you know, they become paraplegics, that kind of thing. Or, you know, what are called baby cases, right? Medical malpractice cases where you have a young— where you have a baby that pops out that may not have been properly cared for, then you're looking at huge damages for for each file. And so you only need to carry 10 to 40 files, and those, those are on the, what we're calling the top end of value, right? Whereas others, others will have volume practices where you'll have 100 to 300 files because the value is small.
So there's room in personal injury, and I think in law in general, for volume or value.
Interesting. So then this pattern does exist, volume versus value. Would you say in your experience, commercial litigation falls under value and it's sort of harder to have a volume commercial litigation practice?
Yeah, because of ability to pay, right? In commercial litigation, you're usually looking at companies that can pay you. And if the value of the dispute isn't large enough to be worth disputing or worth paying a lawyer for, you're not going to see it. So a $50,000 dispute, you know, maybe people will go to a lawyer, maybe they won't, right? Maybe they'll go to small claims court and do it by themselves. $150,000, maybe they will go to a lawyer, so maybe you'll make some money there. And of course, the more complex it is, then the more, more you'll make, and so on. Yeah, so I think it is available. One thing I do want to say, by the way, Pulat, is there's often judgment amongst, I think, in our community about whether you are a volume lawyer or whether you are a lawyer that does, you know, complex high-value work, and I think that's a judgment that is best thrown out because either way you make a living and either way you can make a damn good living.
Yes, absolutely. Now, another interesting area of practice that I would say falls under volume, and I'll, I'll be interested to hear what you have to say, is insolvency and restructuring work. And the reason I say that They charge by the hour, but they, I feel that they often know how much they will bill for any given restructuring project because of the past record, right? And of course, there are only so many firms that get the best pieces of restructuring work. And to me, it seems that in that business and that type of practice, it's really about finding the projects and then your billings are pretty much assured up to a certain level. They often even get charges on properties up to a certain limit for their fees.
So that's, that's a security essentially, right? It's similar to personal injury work. Because personal injury lawyers have their fees secured by the insurance company indirectly. I'm not saying directly, but indirectly.
I see what you're saying, yeah. At the end of the day, they get paid by the defendant, yeah.
Yeah, at the end of the day, the insurance company will pay the personal injury lawyer.
A part of the money, yes. Cost.
So as long as the insurance company is there, personal injury lawyers will invest in experts, will invest in their associates, will invest in the support staff, will invest in the file, 'cause they know that their business decision is sound. That's how the contingency fees work. It's a business decision to offer contingency fee and it has to be a sound decision.
And you need a pot of money that can pay you. It's not gonna be your own client, so you need another pot of money.
Right, and today, There are different options to obtain this pot in order to be able to make a business decision to offer contingency fee. It used to be just, you know, traditional sources of financing, maybe your own money, maybe slowly build up that pot over several years of practice. But today we have litigation funding, which for essentially a cut of your contingency fee, will provide you with that pot, right?
Yeah, but keep in mind litigation funding is just a matter— isn't how— isn't necessarily how the lawyer gets paid. It's just about whether you get paid, you get some help with your funding upfront or you get it at the end. It's just about timing. You either get it at the front or at the end.
Right, and some litigation funders, well, I think litigation funding implies upfront funding. And then there is adverse cost insurance, which implies insurance against adverse cost awards at the end, right?
Against your client, yeah.
Yeah, are you referring to this dichotomy?
No, I'm just saying, yes, there's litigation funding, but it's not, necessarily to pay the lawyer, right? And even if it was, it would just pay a chunk of it. The way the lawyer gets paid is the— really paid is the settlement at the end by the— when the defendant pays.
Yes, I would imagine litigation funding would go towards expert fees and such.
Yeah.
Yes. So would you say that expert fees are the biggest cost in personal injury cases for lawyers?
Well, if you're talking out-of-pocket money, by far, yes. These days you get expert reports. When I first started, expert reports were $2,000 to $4,000, and now they're $6,000 to $15,000. The average expert is about $10,000.
Just for the report or it includes testimony in court?
Just the report.
Okay, just for the sake of our viewers. I have a, I wanna shift gears a little bit and talk about salaried lawyers. I think we've been really chatting about things that are more relevant to owners of law practices, but if you're a salaried lawyer, let's say you're a salaried lawyer in Toronto and on paper you're making $100,000 to $200,000 a year, and then before tax. Can you be wealthy?
Yeah, so it is hard for lawyers to, to build wealth, which is my definition of high net worth relative to expenses, right? By the way, the number is usually about 25 times. You want about 25 times your expenses. And that's the rule of thumb anyway. And the reason it's hard for us is because we hang out with other lawyers and our clients often have more money than we do. And when there's, there's an expectation that we drive around in a Porsche or in a nice BMW, that we wear a suit when we go to work, that we look nice wherever we go. There's an expectation that we have a certain look and feel. And I don't think that, that, and I think that's another expectation that should be thrown out.
We lawyers are like anyone else, normal people, and if we live normally, if we live without our BMWs, if we live without our nice houses and without our private schools and so on, then we can build, we can build a high net worth. We can get rid of, or to put it, you don't even need high net worth, you just need to lower your expenses. So there, there's two ways which you just discussed: offense, which is making money and making more and more money, and defense, which is lowering your expenses. I think for a lot of lawyers, the offense is hard and the offense is limited, you know. If you're gonna make— the bulk of lawyers, you know, they're gonna make somewhere between $100,000 and $200,000.
Very few are gonna see far above that. But you can control your defense. Maybe you're spending $100,000 of your $100,000 salary, leaving you with nothing. But if you live on 30 to 50K and you decide not to get that condo downtown and you decide to do a little commuting and you decide to buy a suit from, a cheap suit from the Bay instead of Harry Rosen, then you're on your way. And in The Millionaire Next Door, You know how much the average millionaire has ever spent on a suit?
No.
$400. $400. So the average millionaire, in other words, might be someone that you have no idea that they are a millionaire. The average millionaire in net worth might be someone that's next door.
Well, the money is so cheap right now. I'm not surprised if a lot of people are millionaires in net worth, especially after the hike in real estate prices in the West, right?
Yes.
So we might be—
Yeah, the book was written before 2000, so it was before the boom. But yes, these days I would raise the bar higher, right? Maybe it's more than a million.
Yeah. So this defensive approach is safer than the offensive approach. It carries less risk.
Well, I'm going to say not only does it— is it easier to control and it carries less risk, but I'm also going to argue it's better for your life. It is better for you not to feel like you got to keep up with others all the time. It will make you happier not to compare yourself with other lawyers who have huge offense, right? You will be less stressed if you have less expenses in your life. You will not be worried about losing your job or getting a lower paying job. Because you can handle that. Your expenses don't require you to get that, a bigger job. So you're going to be less stressed, you're going to be happy because you're not comparing yourself with others, and you're going to be able to focus on what you— what, what I was going to say should, but you're going to be able to focus on what you want to focus on as opposed to what the consumerism makes you focus on, which is your you have the freedom to focus on your relationships, to focus on your family, or whatever it is that you want, because you're not busy just trying to meet your expenses because you're spending too much.
Thank you for avoiding should, because there is no professional advice on this show. You know I, I definitely hear you and What would you recommend, without that being professional advice of course, to a 30-something, 20-something, 30-something professional or lawyer who lives in Toronto? How do they reduce their expenses?
Well, we, we do have people that do live in Toronto that are young that are doing pretty well on the website. On our Facebook group, and I think as a whole they spend very little. I speak with— when I speak with young lawyers, they often tell me that they have an apartment downtown overlooking the lake. Pulat, an apartment downtown overlooking the lake, that's well over $1,700, it's probably over $2,000 a month now, right? I can't even guess how much that costs. When I was a young lawyer, I don't mind saying I lived at home. I was at home for a couple years, you know. I lived in a— when I came here and practiced in Barrie, I lived in a basement apartment.
I didn't live downtown by the lake until my income was much higher, and then by that time I got married and so on. So you have to make choices that coincide with a value system that is outside of reward. I think it's helpful to stop thinking in terms of, I have done something good, so I'm going to reward myself by spending money. I have a really good job, so I'm going to reward myself by living by the lake. I settled a big case, so I'm going to reward myself by getting a nice car. I had a huge bonus, so I'm going to reward myself by getting that, that nice suit or going on that huge vacation and so on.
I think that's, that's a way that we often drive ourselves, and, and there's no need for that. You don't need to reward yourself with money.
It's reward and signaling, right?
Yes. Or as the as the authors in The Millionaire Next Door say it, it's artifacts. Social artifacts.
Fine, fine. It's reward and signaling, and your contention is they are not necessary. And not only are they not necessary, they're also harmful. And that's why you advocate a defensive approach, which is reducing expenses. But wouldn't you agree that it's the people with the offensive approach who make this world go around, who invent, who start amazing companies, who begin movements and things like that?
Well, that's the argument, isn't it, Pulat? And that's, that's the bigger argument about what whether they would have started that even if the wealth wasn't there. And I'm going to argue that Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates would have started Amazon and would have started Microsoft even if they weren't gonna— even if they were not going to end up having billions. I'm going to argue they were driven by that because they loved it and they had nothing else but to do what they did.
I think we're reaching a deep, fascinating conclusion here today. If you don't have an overarching idea, if you don't have an overarching mission such as change the world or change law, right, or change retail, don't try to be a millionaire through an offensive approach. Or don't try to be rich or wealthy through an offensive approach. Instead, control your expenses and reach a comfortable living or life. But if you have an overarching mission, money is no object, and you're not going to be doing it for the money. You're,
But, but it's funny because when you think about not doing things for the money well, first of all, there's very few Bill Gates and, and Jeff Bezos out there. They didn't do it for the money and they were very successful. There are others who don't do it for the money and become nothing. We never hear about them, right? Survivorship bias. But what I'll say about the funny thing, if you stop caring about money, right, if you stop rewarding yourself with buying things if you stop spending, right, you're going to end up saving tons and tons of money. And so the paradox— the paradoxical result of not putting any stock in money is that you're going to become filthy rich because you're going to have such low expenses and such high savings.
But isn't it also necessary to love something for that thing to accumulate in your life? Isn't there a general rule to that effect in life? You have to love something, and if you don't love it, subconsciously you're going to reject it because some people have philosophical objections to wealth.
Yeah.
Or they have some subconscious bias because as they were growing up, their parents would constantly use things, say things like dirty rich or filthy rich or something like that.
Well, and in fact, something that you see is, is people that grew up poor and then they, they have a lot of income, sometimes the instinct there is to spend. Sometimes people that grow up poor and then end up with a lot of income, they're the ones that want to do the most signaling. Because while they were growing up poor, what did they see in their rich friends? They saw people driving around in Beamers. They saw people going on ski, ski, ski trips. They saw people having things that they didn't have. And so to them, being rich equals having things, equals signaling. That is what it means to be wealthy for them. And of course you see that with, you know, stuff like the Kardashians, right?
Culture— our culture and media repeat the false lesson that being rich means having rich things and doing things that cost money. But that's not what being rich means. Being rich means having a ton of money in the bank. Your money is in the bank. It's not in your car. It's not in your house. It's not in your suit. Your money's in the bank. That's true wealth. And if there was a TV show that talked about millionaires living like real millionaires, it would be very, very boring because you just sit around not spending.
I love how we started talking about wealth and how to make money and ended up talking about the meaning of life and the purpose, having a purpose and things like that. I guess it always comes down to that at the end of the day. Ian, do you want to say anything in conclusion?
Look, for me build— building wealth is about freedom, okay? If, as lawyers, we all have this freedom, we can go out and start our law firm on our own at any time, or if we're unhappy doing whatever it is we're doing as an employee or doing something for someone else. But there's another freedom that you can have, and that's when you have saved enough or are on the road to saving enough such that your, your net worth or your wealth exceeds your expenses by many, many times. And when you get on that road, you, you feel more and more freedom. You have the freedom to think what you want, And I think it's a mistake to think that you don't, that you already have that freedom.
Typically you don't. You come home and you're tired and you're exhausted and so on. You have the freedom to do what you want. You have the freedom to say what you want because there's no repercussions for you in terms of money. And if you can get to that point or you are on the road to getting to that point, it's a very, very satisfying feeling. So for that reason, think about your finances and think about how to get financial independence.
Well, thank you, Ian, for sharing your thoughts today with us. I love the discussion. I learned something and something to think about for sure. I really appreciate it, and thank you again, and have a wonderful day.
Thanks, Pulat.