Prestador de serviços (autonomo)
Explanation:
O termo fee-earner é essencialmente usado no Reino Unido. Sem contexto, fica complicado, pois poder ser um prestador de serviços avulsos, um tarefeiro (trabalha por tarefa, definição na CLT), um autonomo (como definido nas leis previdenciárias). Não é necessariamente um advogado. Pode se referir a um estagiário que presta serviços sem vínculo empregatício ou a um despachante iou mesmo a um consultor, sendo necessário mais contexto.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 7 hrs (2011-09-02 15:52:34 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
What Are the Duties of a Fee Earner?
By Cindy Quarters, eHow Contributor
The fee earner plays an important role in the legal profession.
A law firm may have two kinds of staff, fee earners and non-fee earners. Non-fee earners in a law firm include attorneys (also called solicitors) who provide professional support for other lawyers in the firm, or support staff people, such as clerks, research assistants and anyone else who assists in the running of the firm but does not charge a case fee for doing so.
A fee earner is defined as a lawyer who takes on cases or instructions and charges a client a fee to do so. This is a common term in the United Kingdom, but not often used in the United States.
===========
Assim, não se encaixa de um consultor, mas de um profissional que trabalha à base somente de honorários. Seria um parceiro ou associado não associado ...tudo numa forma bem britânica.
Read more: What Are the Duties of a Fee Earner? http://www.ehow.com/list_6518496_duties-fee-earner_.html#ixz...
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 7 hrs (2011-09-02 16:00:16 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Se o fee earner faz trabaslho essencialmente de campo, essencialmente NÂO é um consultor, salvo erro, ignorância ou equívoco da minha parte. O consultor resolve questões técnicas SEM CONTATO com o cliente. Essencialmente é um prestador de serviços contratualmente obrigado a atender necessidades específicas de clientes indicados pelo escritório de advocacia e que recebe honorários pelos serviços que presta, apresentando a conta, que será paga pelo CLIENTE e não pelo escritório.
Bem britânico...Em NY existem também escritórios que trabalham com profissionais nesse modelo mais tradicional: o prestador de serviços independente, mas vinculado por contrato ao escritório que capta os clientes e delega-os a tal profissional.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day2 hrs (2011-09-03 10:38:46 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
FEE-EARNER é o profissional da área jurídica que é remunerado por honorários, como segue:
In BrE law firms, there is a middle rank of persons who are not qualified solicitors but who perform duties that are other than purely secretarial (in the modern sense). Some of these persons may have their duties billed out to clients of the law firm. If so, they become "fee earners" by definition. If no bill is ever sent to a client for work purportedly done by such a person, that person is, by definition, not (yet) a "fee earner".
A "fee earner" could also be called a paralegal. But some paralegals are not "fee earners". It depends on whether the services purportedly performed by the paralegal are billed to a client in which case the paralegal is both paralegal and "fee earner". There may be some BrE tendency to regard "fee earner" as a more exalted position than "mere paralegal", so there may be some tendency for "fee earner" paralegals to call themselves "fee earners" rather than or instead of "paralegals".
It does not seem that any qualified solicitor would ever call himself a "fee earner" except in a highly specialized context in which "fee earner" would be used to describe any professional staff of a law firm from solicitors on down to service-billing paralegals.
A "legal executive" seems to be a "fee earner", at least ordinarily, and is largely indistinguishable from a paralegal except in that there's some professional self-regulation going on. A legal executive can probably command a somewhat higher salary, on average, than a "mere fee earner" or a "mere fee earner who cannot hold himself out as a legal executive". In AmE the corresonding positions will almost always be "paralegals", except in a few rare situations which I can go into if anyone's interested.
In any case, it seems that no solicitor in his right mind would ever call himself a "fee earner" since it implies lower status and lower salary command (unless of course one is speaking of all professional staff of the law firm as "fee earners"). I'm guessing that much of the reason why the term "fee earner" is used as it is at all is that there are people not qualified as "legal executives" (perhaps a vanishing profession, a product of early postwar experimentation?) who want some sort of nice-sounding title for themselves to distinguish them from the riff-raff below them.
Also, "fee earner" seems to be similarly used in Subsidiary BrE-Tradition cultures, like AusE.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day2 hrs (2011-09-03 10:51:36 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
http://www.ilex.org.uk/careers/careers_home/what_is_a_legal_...
ILEX Members are Fee Earners
Once they have completed their first stage of academic training (the ILEX Level 3 Professional Diploma in Law and Practice course), employers (on a court assessment of costs) can charge Trainee Legal Executives fee-earning time as level D litigation assistant fee scale, which is currently up to £138 an hour in London and up to £118 nationally (based on SCCO 2010 guidelines rates for summary assessment).
Once they have passed their second stage of ILEX academic training (ILEX Level 6 Professional Higher Diploma in Law and Practice course),employers (on a court assessment of costs) can charge Trainee Legal Executives fee-earning time on the level C litigation assistant fee scale, which is currently up to £226 an hour in London and up to £161 nationally (based on SCCO 2010 guidelines rates for summary assessment). With experience, there is no reason for Legal Executive lawyers not to make grade A fee earners.
There is no good reason for preventing legal executives from claiming Grade A fee-earner rates in summary costs assessments. Since the introduction of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), judges at all levels are required to assess costs summarily at the end of a trial on the fast-track or at the conclusion of any other hearing which has lasted not more than one day. This requirement led to an immediate request from judges for guidance as to how to go about summary assessment.
A comprehensive guide was first published in 2002 by the Supreme Court Costs Office (SCCO), now known as The Guide to the Summary Assessment of Costs, which, as the name suggests, contains guideline figures based on information from practitioners in their jurisdictional regions.
The guide summarises the general principles of solicitors' charging rates, known variously as the 'going rate' or 'guideline rates'. Different rates apply according to the category of fee-earner appropriate to the matter. Initially, there were only the following three grades of fee-earner:
A. Solicitors with over four years' post-qualification experience (PQE);
B. Other solicitors and legal executives, and fee-earners of equivalent experience; and
C. Trainee solicitor and fee-earners of equivalent experience.
However, following consultation with the profession, the Law Society asked for approval for guidelines rates for four grades of fee-earner. The grades of fee-earner, as they stand now, are as follows:
A. Solicitors with over eight years' PQE, including at least eight years' litigation experience;
B. Solicitors and legal executives with over four years' PQE, including at least four years litigation experience;
C. Other solicitors and legal executives, and fee-earners of equivalent experience; and
D. Trainee solicitors, paralegals and other fee-earners.
It is not the purpose of this article to provide a review of the whole regime relating to charge-out rates, which can be found elsewhere, but rather to put forward the case that the present costs system needs to recognise the continuing and growing role of legal executives within the profession.
It is now expressly recognised by the guide that Fellows of ILEX possess considerable practical experience and academic achievement. However, the guide refers to the need for solicitors to have eight years' or more PQE to attract the Grade A 'going rate', but fails to recognise legal executives of equivalent experience. This can potentially work to the disadvantage of such legal executives. For example, if firms cannot claim the highest rate for the work which legal executives do, that might cap what they earn.
It is important to note that the guide is not statutory guidance. Its provenance is that it was produced at the request of the Vice-Chancellor, Sir Richard Scott (now Lord Scott of Foscotte) to assist judges with the task of costs assessment (it is replicated as CPR GHR 48 in the CPR). It is no more than a guide and a starting point for judges in carrying out the assessment. The guide is not intended to fetter the proper exercise of a judge's discretion having heard argument on the issues to be decided.
As such, it is arguable that Fellows can claim a high category but would have to justify it with reference to the complexity of the case and their expertise. Indeed, the Judicial Studies Board, when commenting on the guide, states: '[The figures] are not a firmly-defined tariff, and are capable of increase or reduction as the circumstances dictate.'
The gap is narrowing between the various branches of the profession: legal executives will soon become partners in legal disciplinary practices, alongside solicitors and barristers. Moreover, ILEX is one of the approved regulators under the Legal Services Act 2007. In the not too distant future, the profession will welcome its first legal executive district judge. The latter scenario raises the interesting prospect of a legal executive sitting as a district judge determining the appropriate rate for a legal executive with eight years' or more PQE.
ILEX feels that the present system cannot reasonably justify this grade distinction between solicitors and legal executives of similar experience, especially when no distinction is made at grade B. Even if one argues that solicitors becoming partners in firms should reasonably attract higher charge-out rates, this argument falls apart in light of the impending introduction of legal disciplinary practices.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day2 hrs (2011-09-03 10:59:49 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
JUNIOR FEE EARNER PARALEGAL
Sector Legal - Paralegal
Organisation Description
The firm specialises in personal injury and medical clinical negligence claims. All of our staff have extensive experience in personal injury and medical clinical negligence. We have a national network of experts, doctors, engineers and barristers to help you with your claim for compensation.
Job Description
We are looking for an experienced Paralegal or Fee Earner to join this central firm of solicitors as Junior Fee Earner.
You will be used to working autonomously and handling your own extensive caseload.
The candidate will display organisational skills, be able to manage a diverse workload, prioritise and meet tight deadlines.
Well developed spoken and written communication skills, team player with ability to act on own initiative
Please only apply if you have clinical negligence experience and have worked on your own caseloads.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day3 hrs (2011-09-03 11:32:11 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Ou de como é necessário ler e estudar anters de dar uma informação. Senão, fica parecendo advinhação...devaneio. Quando o colega tradutor expõe sua dúvida, busca soluções. Ressalto que "free earner" é um cargo delimitado pelo Judiciário do Reino Unido.
http://www.alternativecosts.co.uk/scco-guideline-rates.htm#f...
SCCO guideline rates - Supreme Courts Costs Office
Fee Earner Grades
The grades of fee earner have been agreed between representatives of the Supreme Court Costs Office, the Association of District Judges and the Law Society. The categories are as follows:
- Solicitors with over eight years post qualification experience including at least eight years litigation experience.
- Solicitors and legal executives with over four years post qualification experience including at least four years litigation experience.
- Other solicitors and legal executives and fee earners of equivalent experience.
- Trainee solicitors, paralegals and other fee earners.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day4 hrs (2011-09-03 12:09:43 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
NO REINO UNIDO, O PAÍS DE "COMMON LAW", UM NÃO ADVOGADO PODE PRESTAR SERVIÇOS JURÍDICOS, DESDE QUE SOB SUPERVISÃO DE UM ADVOGADO.
http://jus.uol.com.br/revista/texto/19502/os-perigos-da-inva...
Os perigos da invasão de advogados estrangeiros no Brasil
Durval de Noronha Goyos
...
Em algumas jurisdições estrangeiras, como no Reino Unido, os provedores de serviços jurídicos não mais são advogados, de acordo com os tratados internacionais de regência sobre a matéria, conforme já decidiu o próprio Conselho de Ordens da União Européia (CCBE). Moldados como bancos de investimentos, podem tais firmas ter sócios e prestadores de serviços não advogados.
A orientação profissional de tais organismos difere da advocacia e se aproxima daquela dos bancos de investimentos, que tantos prejuízos causaram à economia mundial manifestos na crise econômica e financeira de 2008, cujos efeitos persistem até hoje.
O estabelecimento de tais entidades no Brasil diretamente, ou mediante o uso de interpostas pessoas, ainda que advogados, não apenas constitui fraudes diversas, em violação ao direito penal pátrio, mas apresenta graves riscos de ordem pública.Sem a qualificação e o compromisso com o ordenamento jurídico brasileiro, tais entidades confundirão o público consumidor apresentando-se como advogados, qualidade que não possuem. ...
A situação se apresenta tanto mais grave porque a OAB tem uma excelente regulamentação a permitir o funcionamento do consultor em direito estrangeiro, há mais de dez anos, outorgada unilateralmente, bem como a regular de maneira equilibrada e não discriminatória a qualificação de advogados estrangeiros no Brasil.
....
Algumas vozes pouco esclarecidas no Brasil acham que o fenômeno é uma manifestação da globalização. Tais pessoas não enxergam que, nos países dessas organizações, a chamada globalização não é possível, pelo protecionismo institucionalizado, pois valem apenas os próprios interesses.
...
| Antonio Barros
Brazil
Local time: 00:04
Specializes in field
Native speaker of: Portuguese
PRO pts in category: 93
|
|
peer agreement (net): +3