Shopping for legal advice at Quality Solicitors
Yesterday morning I visited QualitySolicitors Freeman Harris for a free consultation. For those who haven’t heard, the firm is believed to be the first to open inside a shopping centre.
I visited not as a journalist, but as a customer. I have never instructed a solicitor but, then again, I know very few people my age that have; so I should say at the outset that I cannot compare the service I received from QS Freeman Harris with the service I have received from a ‘traditional’ law firm. I should also say that I walked through the door with an open mind.
To all intents and purposes, QS Freeman Harris resembles a shop rather than a law firm office. This is helped, in no small part, by the fact that it is inside a shopping centre, adjacent to Poundland and opposite Boots. The bright pink-and-black theme caught my eye amid the drab tiled floor and artificial lighting of the concourse, along which a gaggle of schoolchildren were throwing sweets at each other.
As I scanned the glass shop front, I was struck not by the giant Lara Croft-esque cartoon solicitor posing next to Poundland, but by the age of the clientele. At a guess, nobody was older than 30. Not that the shop was packed – there were four customers – but then again, it was half past nine in the morning.
As I walked in through an open door, one of the staff, probably in his early 20s and resplendent in branded polo shirt and name badge, greeted me with a smile. The shop front is spacious, containing two small tables complete with padded chairs, a rack of advice leaflets, a private consultation room and a small reception desk below a beaming QS Freeman Harris logo. We walked to a table and, still standing, discussed the first of my worries: an outstanding county court claim against a dodgy internet retailer.
In less than five minutes he had advised me that, because I had already won summary judgment, there was little that a solicitor could do to further the claim. He said that the best course of action, should I wish to continue pursuing the claim, would be to contact the court and get them to send in the bailiffs. ‘But,’ I asked, ‘why should I risk paying a £100 enforcement fee on top of the £25 court fee to try and recoup the £80 that my claim was worth?’ ‘That’s the unfortunate problem with low-value claims and dodgy companies,’ he said candidly.
We moved to my second worry: a dispute with the police over a Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme claim. After a couple of minutes’ chat, my adviser stopped me. ‘Our personal injury guy is here,’ he said. ‘I’m going to get him to talk to you now.’ We were promptly joined at our table by an older man – probably in his early 30s – who had forsaken branded clothing for suit and tie (I learned later that he was a solicitor from Freeman Harris’s head office in Bermondsey). The younger man left us to talk, and went to greet a young lady who had just walked through the door.
After 10 or so minutes spent sifting through my papers and talking about the background of the claim, the solicitor – more serious in demeanour but affable nonetheless – told me that he’d like to take the case further. An appointment would be arranged at Freeman Harris’s Bermondsey office within the week, so that we could go through the specifics in more detail, and determine for sure whether or not I have a claim. When I raised the subject of fees, he told me that if the case proceeded, I would pay a contingency fee of 15-20% of any compensation received, and nothing if the claim failed.
I decided to take him up on the offer, having exhausted all other options (and, of course, so that I could report back further on the QualitySolicitors experience). We were joined again by the younger assistant, who jotted down my personal details in a private consultation room, before I walked to the door (passing the personal injury solicitor, who was already chatting with another customer) and out onto the concourse. Just 25 minutes had elapsed, and I had paid a grand total of zero pounds for advice received.
I have to say, I left a happy customer. I felt at ease and well looked after throughout, and upon leaving, glad that my problems, if not yet resolved, were being dealt with.
But what is most interesting is that I had never once considered taking these problems to a ‘traditional’ high street law firm – which, once the branding is stripped away, is what Freeman Harris is. My gut instinct was that a traditional law firm would not be interested in helping me with such trivial matters, and would cost too much. These of course are preconceptions based on feeling rather than fact, but nevertheless they were enough to stop me seeking advice. And, judging by the profile of customers in QS Freeman Harris, it appears that others in my generation have the same sentiments.
Comments
And, crucially, someone who
And, crucially, someone who has had the positive experience of this journalist will return to this firm for their future conveyancing, family/divorce or employment needs. A resounding endorsement of the strategy in my view.
Just Curious!
Very glad to hear about the experience but I am curious about a couple of things:
1. It appears from the article that the whole discussion (apart from taking personal details) took place in an open area where other members of the public were present and able to hear all that was being said; what happened to the obligation to maintain confidentiality?
2. Although James appears happy with his experience, is he happy that QSFH was acting in his best interest by letting others hear about the problems he had? Are we moving towards what banks do, namely discussing your private affairs at a public desk until either you ask to speak in private or the bank takes the initiative?
3. Although the PI case came 'through the door', will it result in a referral fee being paid to QS or will QSFH retain its independence in this regard?
4. Many solicitors offer free initial consultations (normally 30 minutes) so why should people feel that paying nothing for the visit at QSFH is something special?
Re: point 3 - QS do not
Re: point 3 - QS do not receive referral fees.
Re: point 4 - That's the power of clever and effective marketing!
No clever - just expensive
What clever about spending huge sums on retail space?
The fact that by 9.30am there
The fact that by 9.30am there were already 4 new clients in the store and that is just a few days following their opening! I don't think we've had 4 new clients come into our offices here "on spec" in the past month, and we're quite well located with a (I think) quite nice, well presented office! A stream of new clients like that - especially if, as the post below says, they retain them and market to them propery, - is well worth the investment in retail space, I'd imagine.
you'd imagine?!?
Did you not do the sums before opening the shop? Was the cost of the shop necessary if you could have done this from your "well located" offices. "If you market to them properly" ?
The cost per client must make CMC fees look attractive!
I think you're confused. My
I think you're confused. My firm is not Freeman Harriss! I was defending their decision to take this retail space by comparing with my firm. From the above report it sounds like a great commercial decision to me, that's all I was saying.
Referral fees
My understanding from QS itself was that a referral fee is paid, mainly in the form of a marketing fee but in some cases, an individual case fee; perhaps some clarity is required.
As a QS firm, I can confirm
As a QS firm, I can confirm that no individual case fees are ever paid to QS. The only fee is an annual one.
Correct - annual marketing
Correct - annual marketing fee, which is disclosed by both QS and QS firms, but no "per case" referral fees at all.
Correct - annual marketing
Correct - annual marketing fee, which is disclosed by both QS and QS firms, but no "per case" referral fees at all.
Really interesting article
I think this provides a fascinating insight into the future legal market.
James is (presumably!) an intelligent, professional guy who is precisely the kind of client, just setting out in the phase of their lives that requires involvement with law firms, that all law firms ought to be desperately trying to attract. These clients are the future of all our firms. He is likely to need a lawyer a number of times in the future. He may start a business. If QS firms market properly to their databases, all these new clients attracted by the brand, will enable them to achieve real future success in my view. Of course, the brand won't be for everyone (just like any brand), but here's a client who wouldn't have even gone to a "law firm" were it not for this and in that sense they are not just competing for existing clients of other firms but are actually opening up a whole new market.
As a QS firm, and no not
As a QS firm, and no not Freeman Harris, I can confirm there are no hidden fees or anything either for clients or member firms. What Freeman Harris have done is taken a brave plunge into effectively transforming legal services into an almost retail experience to get clients onboard.
It is a business decision and if we are to survive the coming onslaught we have to start treating our firms as businesses the same as any other. We can no longer hide behind qualifications in the certainty such qualifications will guarantee a good standard of living or get precious about the concept of 'the profession.'
Wake up and smell the coffee. What we can do is take what is good in what we do now and put it within slicker business models. We are good, professional law firms and that is the one edge we will have over the Tesco laws of the world when they come after our client base.
Thanks...!
Thank you for clarifying the referral fee point, but can you do the same on the confidentiality point I made as these are more important from a client care perspective; this one seems to have passed those responding by so far?
I don't know the answer but I
I don't know the answer but I can see the article refers to the store layout including a private consultation room. I suspect that it is a training issue in terms of how clients are first approached in this regard - in fairness, the store is only a few days old and the above sounds like a damn good start to me!
Privacy
If it is accepted that all client matters are confidential and therefore need to be dealt with in private, then each of the four clients mentioned should have been seen in a consultation room from the moment any conversation started; one room would not be enough.
Based on the timings used above that means the last client would have to wait for 75 minutes before being seen; do you think a client would wait this long, especially if they were on their lunch break?
Could we see "take a ticket and come back at your allotted time when a room is free" , or each QS shop having to take on more space for consultation rooms (would this then make it uneconomical?)?
If clients are happy to discuss matters in the open then that is a matter for them, but the lawyers are bound by the Code of Conduct and while this is the case they must protect the clients' privacy; it is one thing to discuss your new glasses in public it is another to discuss your divorce, arrest, medical condition (negligence), etc! Could you imagine how the rumour mill would start if someone overheard a neighbour talking to their lawyer about being arrested or getting divorced!
I am all for new ventures but we must ensure the clients we serve are protected!
I agree but I don't think we
I agree but I don't think we should assume that this isn't catered for by the store. It looked very spacious in the photos on the previous gazette article and so I'd assume they could easily add more private rooms if necessary too.
That being the case....
If they had the rooms they should have used them and not talked to clients in the open as if they were discussing a dented tin of beans!
You refer frequently to the
You refer frequently to the "QS" aspect of this firm. That is irrelevent. This "firm" has chosen to open a branch in a shopping centre (being a member, or whatever each firm is, of QS was possibly not a condition precedent). Strikes me that these guys are simply proactive in their apprach to "business"!
To take your approach to the initial meeting would be akin to saying that all law firms should only allow one client into their reception/waiting area at a time since "off the street clients" will always mention why they want to see a lawyer and clients with appointments asking for a particular divorce lawyer (by way of example) could be construed as announcing their family difficulties.
We do not work out of a confessional box and you need to appreciate that the general duty of confidentiality can be waived by the client at their discretion, but pragmatism is everywhere.
Privacy
Just to clear up this point - all clients are asked at the outset whether they would like to use the consultation room. If that didn't occur here (and it is not clear that it didn't) then that is a training issue. We entirely recognise the importance of our clients' privacy. Some prefer to use the private area, others are happy not to - it is a matter for them.
Missing the point!
I think you have missed the point, you as the lawyer, have a duty to protect their privacy and therefore should invite them to a private room without the need to ask the question; some clients may not appreciate what could happen if others overheard what they were saying and therefore you need to act as their guardian and act in their best interest!
Do you really feel that you are acting in the client's best interest if you discuss their private affairs and sensitive information in public (and I would say all information handled by a lawyer is sensitive) even if they said it was okay to do so?
So, will the Gazette be
So, will the Gazette be providing reviews of other, none QualitySolicitors, firms?
Be careful what you wish
Be careful what you wish for.....!!!
No Treasure Without Measure
I like the fact that solicitors are trying new marketing initiatives. The legal market place is not renowned for trying new things but it absolutely has to now or countless firms will disappear post October 11. You used to be able to do what you have always done to get the same results. Doing what you have always done in this new economy gets you decreasing results.
So try new initiatives, learn from them, copy other peoples, but whatever you do solicitors have to keep trying new methods (and improving existing ones), and when you do ensure that you measure every aspect of their effectiveness. If you spend £1,000, make sure it gives you at least £2,000 back, if you spend £10,000, make it £100,000.
There is no treasure without measure
Privacy
Sounds more like trying to pick holes in a fantastic and new initiative under the guise of protecting the client.
To say Freeman Harris have taken the bull by the horns in their venture is an understatement and good luck to them and the rest of the QS firms. As alluded to in another post if firms do not wake up and start to make commercial decisions they will be swept aside.
The LSA is no false dawn. The threats are real and these companies already have the majority of their clients on their databases.
Picking holes -v- Client protection
Why do you immediately think that someone who has concerns for clients is trying to pick holes in the venture; I have no interest is stopping QS I merely want to make sure that any new venture, QS or not, is subject to scrutiny to ensure clients are protected. Isn't that what we all want?
Hold on - the author is
Hold on - the author is merely a potential client. He hasn't paid over any money yet.
The problem with a "law shop" is that you are going to get loads of time-wasters coming in off the street - I'll bet that the most of the folks that call in do not lead to the firm actually earning any fees. And, so far as I can see, no actual fee-earning work is going to be done there, but instead will be undertaken in existing offices.
So, let's say they need 3 members of staff on duty at any time - 1 reception, 1 paralegal and 1 qualified lawyer. Say that's mimimum of £100,000 in salaries per annum . I've no idea of rents and rates in Lewisham, but I'm sure that the whole operation must be costing upwards of £200k p/a incl.
Just for, in essence, a marketing opportunity...
"And, so far as I can see, no
"And, so far as I can see, no actual fee-earning work is going to be done there, but instead will be undertaken in existing offices."
That's a big assumption. Presumably, when not engaged with potential clients the lawyers there will be able to fee earn in which case they are just relocating existing staff and not adding to their costs. And if those staff are so busy with clients that they are not able to fee earn then I doubt the firm will consider that a bad thing!
I think it all depends on how you view those clients who do not have an immediate "fee earning" issue. You call them time-wasters. My firm (not a QS one - yet!) would view them as opportunities, whether now or in the future. Help them with their immediate issue and they'll come back to you when they do have a fee paying problem. Perhaps use the opportunity of discussing their small claim issue (in the above example it took less than 5 minutes of the paralegal's time) to cross-sell (yes, "sell"") them a will. Give them a discount voucher to take away for a future conveyancing transaction. An opportunity to engage with a new potential client is hugely valuable no matter what their immediate need.
My reading of the article was that the firm left with a new client - or at least a firm appointment - in terms of a CICB claim and probably, if they handle this well, for any future legal issue. It is all about how you approach things and I believe this will be a huge success for the firm involved.
THE NEW ACCIDENT GROUP??
POSSIBLY
Bias, What Bias?
The editorial bias of this publication is beyond the pale.
Are you, James Dean, on the payroll of QS. There doesn't appear to be much objectivity or balance to any article you write about QS. I wonder why? It's disgusting the way this publication is pandering to QS. James, your reputation is sinking faster than the titanic!
Oh no...!
Someone has awoken the "LSG is biased; QS are evil claims farmers/TAG mach 2" brigade....
Just when the comments on this post appeared to have a modicum of normality.
What possible bias is there to this piece? The guy went to try out the store; he had a good experience and he reported back on that. If he had a bad experience, no doubt he would have done likewise. Your notion of "not biased" is to for the article to say what you want the it to say and to share your distorted view of QS, based on some anti-CMC witch hunt, which is something quite different.
Please let's not repeat the senseless posting that followed the previous article on QS.
QS is a sham. Does anyone
QS is a sham. Does anyone remember the QSPI scheme? I was very close to signing up but for some reason something did not feel right( it was probably due to the total harrassment from a certain members of their team). In hindsight that was the best decision ever! From what i have heard from a few firms one the scheme, is that it has not delivered and they do not see it pulling its finger out any time soon.
However Qs has obviously employed a well trianed puppet to write all the above quotes!
£200,000 marketing opportunity - I'd rather not have a shop
McDonalds ain't a great place to eat but they serve up what people want in a way that is profitable. That's what QS should do. But profitability is yet to be proven with the shopping-centre-style-high rent-facility.
Just think what you could do with that £200,000 a year of marketing money...
You could dominate Google for your Town/City
and get 100,000 visits to your website.
If you convert 10,000 at £100 that's
a cool million £'s
And the great thing is you only have to commit a week at a time rather
than an annual lease and it's open 24/7 (unlike a shop).
The key to everything is systematically getting the best leads for the lowest costs
and maximum client lifetime value. It its a numbers game as Nick mentioned.
"You could dominate Google
"You could dominate Google for your Town/City
and get 100,000 visits to your website."
But QS already do that for us. Type "solicitor London" into google! And, from what I know, £200,000 is WAY off the mark!
Getting Website Visitors
Great if you're appearing as top 3 for Solicitors London. Unfortunately, this search term is probably only receiving 2% of searches on Google. Yes, £200,000 is not required to dominate, (you can do it for much less). Perhaps I should have said "imagine what you do with £200,000 marketing budget".
Generally it is better to be resourceful than have resources, (unless you are opening a retail storefront in a high rent area).
The retail store means you are paying a lot of money for walk in traffic compared to online traffic to a website.
So the jury is out on profitability on the high rent retail approach. I wonder how much it costs to set up in a Sainsbury's store?
I do agree with the systematic franchise style approach of QS as likely to be more successful than an independent and unsystematic marketing approach.
But I don't necessarily agree that the retail high-rent approach is the right one. It's a lot of overhead. But then QS doesn't mean you have to have high-rent retail location and that's a good thing.
Certainly I have seen more and more firms that are part of the QS group visiting my website for legal marketing so I surmise that these partners/owners understand their business is about marketing first and foremost.
Hmmm.... Internet marketing
Hmmm.... Internet marketing expert suggests spending lots of money on google... Shock! lol!
Why are parts of the profession so negative?
I'm a partner of a QS firm (although not a QS employed "trained puppet") so I'm obviously biased but I really don't understand where all the vitriol on this site comes from.It is clearly from a, thankfully small, minority of people and it may just be jealous competitor posting but if not, I just cannot understand why solicitors would post in such a way in relation to fellow solicitors. Yes, QS itself as a central organisation is a company but we are all integral parts of it and as an organisation made up of solicitors, the attitude of some is really disappointing.
Firslty, whatever you think of the concept, QS is patently not a "sham". What a ridiculous title to a posting. We are one of dozens and dozens of high quality firms who proudly now bear the QualitySolicitors branding. As it happens, we are also part of QSPI - which has only been up and running for a matter of weeks. We all realise it will take some time to get up to the level of more established schemes and remain supportive of QS's strategy for doing so. We are confident it will ultimately overtake these other PI schemes as the brand becomes known across the UK. As for the main QualitySolicitors scheme it is hard to imagine how it could be going any better. There are now 70 and soon to be 120 branded QS locations. That alone is incredible - no one can deny that. Our firm has benefitted enormously from the association and this is just the beginning. We are delighted with the decision we took to become a QS firm.
We are all, as QS branded firms, integrally involved in the brand's strategy and in developing and shaping its future. We meet regularly. We're not trying to say it is right for every firm or it is the only possible answer to the challenges ahead. We are, amongst ourselves, trying to develop something that we think will be successful. Why then is that a bad thing to some of our profession? It is simply because of the brand's early successes? Is it jealousy or something more?
At least it is helping solicitors. When Co-op ramps up it's operations and the AA/Saga step up a gear and Tesco and the rest get in on the action, they are the ones we should be focusing our energies on - not an organisation made up of and promoting solicitors! 15 million people on Monday saw the QS TV advert which - whilst obviously concentrating on the QS firms that fund it - promoted the brand of solicitor in a way that was not stuffy and old fashioned. That is more than the Law Society's marketing has achieved in years. QS is doing innovative things - the store, well received by the client above who tried it, is just one example. You might not agree with the approach or you might think there are other things that could be done. Great - go do them! We should all be encouraging each other in innovating and doing whatever we can as a profession to stay ahead of the competition that is going to be more fierce than we can imagine.
Maybe we should reflect on who the "enemy" really is and try and be less divisive as a profession for once.
It's dog eat dog. I don't
It's dog eat dog. I don't understand all the whinging and whining on this site. Either you get the Quality scheme or you don't. If you're one of the unfortunate lawyers that lacks marketing skills and innovation you will see your firm go down the drain in no time. Get on the QS scheme and watch the smaller firms fail miserably around you. The whole purpose of this scheme is that your firm will get the lion's share of the business in your local area. If the competition don't like it, tough! Why should anyone care what your competition think. It's not like they'll be around for long is it?
Whilst you're right about the
Whilst you're right about the purpose of scheme - i.e. achieving a dominant local market share - I'm not sure I would put it quite so aggressively... Our is one way of achieving success and I am sure there are others. I would not want to go so far as to say that if you don't join QS you are bound to "fail miserably". Whilst it may seem odd to care about what competitor firms think, it does bother me - and clearly others on here - that elements of the profession have become quite so unpleasant. I don't wish other local firms ill, I wish my firm success. The latter may ultimately cause the former but there is still a difference.
I think i'm going to throw up
"But what is most interesting is that I had never once considered taking these problems to a ‘traditional’ high street law firm – which, once the branding is stripped away, is what Freeman Harris is. My gut instinct was that a traditional law firm would not be interested in helping me with such trivial matters, and would cost too much. These of course are preconceptions based on feeling rather than fact, but nevertheless they were enough to stop me seeking advice"
... and you work for the LSG... you must be having a laugh mate.
It's well known you're on the QS payroll but you're attempts at hiding this are even more laughable than the last paragraph.
I am Practice Manager for a (
I am Practice Manager for a ( very ) traditional High Street firm but I have a 25 year background in retailing.I have thus followed the QS venture with interest
IMO the storefront is a honeypot - most of the actual fee earning will be done "back at the office".
Iif you are big enough to back up the set-up expenses and the ongoing overheads for this type of venture ( and of course to handle the extra work ) then the likelihood is that this concept will succeed - probably quite well.Costings and the correct allocation of costs and income to the store cost centre are important to measuring success
Personally I like the concept but don't think many firms have the critical mass to pull it off - those that do are likely to be successful
But I don't think that putting a new sign outside your existing office is going to work
Shopping for legal advice
The SRA have just reported that there are now 153971 Solicitors on the Roll of which 1200000 are practising. This is an increase of 50% in the last 10 years and the number of firms have increased by a third. When I qualified in the early 70's there were under 30,000 Solicitors. The population of this country has not increased five times since the 70's and has certainly not doubled in the last 10 years.
Meanwhile the housing boom peaked in the late 80's at over 2 million sales a year, the peak in the pre 2007 boom was about 1.6 million sales, now they are half that, but we now have double the amount of solicitors of 10 years ago and a third more firms! With the cuts in Civil Legal Aid, and the Jackson proposals the position in unsustainable with too many Solicitors chasing too little work.
Once upon a time clients used to go to a Solicitor because he had a good reputation as a lawyer, now to get or even preserve your share of a diminishing market is going to depend on how well you market yourself. Quality Solicitors are only doing what is necessary to preserve their members market and increase it at a time when work is less and the size of the profession has doubled in 10 years. It does not mean their lawyers are better than anyone else but is the equivalent of a theatre owner wanting to get "bums on seats".
Meanwhile we will not have a respected Solicitors profession until the profession is much smaller ,say 40000 on the roll, and we return to be lawyers rather than just high grade clerks. Perhaps then like the legal profession in other European countries will be consulted as respected professionals rather than a high street shop dispensing free advice.
Whilst I feel sorry for those students unable to obtain training contracts on any sensible basis a profession which has doubled in size in10 years does not have the resources to continue to expand at that rate. Other professions have not done so but we very stupidly have, driven by the greed of those providing the courses.
It is all very sad.
I hate to be a pedant but an
I hate to be a pedant but an increase of 50% in ten years is not a doubling in size - that would be a 100% increase.
No one at the Gazette is 'on
No one at the Gazette is 'on the QS payroll' as 'anonymous' quaintly (and libellously) puts it. I will observe that their venture is certainly attracting alot of comment, which proves that covering what they are doing in some detail is surely justified. Perhaps certain people, whoever they might be, should just grow up.
Paul Rogerson
Editor in chief
Gazette
Pure Entertainment
I must admit that for pure entertainment there is little that can beat the comments thread on any QS story. I find myself looking out for the same things, the accusations of bias, questions on whether this is news, accusations that someone is really Craig Holt in disguise, claims of claim farming, protestations over their innocence. It's like Hollyoaks for lawyers.
I'm guessing the main reason
I'm guessing the main reason the Gazette keeps putting up news stories on QS is NOT because of its newsworthiness but because it attracts so many comments.
QS has devalued the profession forever (only my opinion). It is a sad situation, once proud lawyers jumping up in joy at the thought of running a small retail store.
My father will be turning in his grave.
Consumer focus
I'm not a solicitor. I'm a management consultant. People find traditional solicitors' offices scary. QS is welcoming and people walk in. I've been trying to persuade solicitors to do something like this for years. People get advice for nothing. What's not to like?
Too Many Law graduates
The fact is that there are too many law graduates coming through the system after watching too many episodes of Ally McBeal naively believing that they are the next young sophisticated lawyer when the reality is they have come from the newer so called universities, the polytechnics who offer degrees to people who's A- Level grades should have discouraged them from law in the first place.
There needs to be a training contract free period for 10 years to slim down the profession to 50000 maximum.
There is simply an oversupply of solicitors riving down salaries especially on the high street.
Law needs to be elitist like other professions. Medicine is and so is Veterinary science without 3 A's at A-level minimum you don't get in. That has to be the way for law too no doubt about it..
The LPC and BVC providers need to be scaled back and the the number of trainees entering the profession reduced by 90% for at least a decade. Degrees from the Russel Group of Red Brick universities only!!!!
That is the commercial reality. Anyone who disagrees is plainly living in cloud cukoo land.
Patronising much?
Ah good, the site's back up. I assume your last comment crashed it through sheer weight of arrogance.
I'm struggling to believe that your post is genuine, and the sentiments expressed are heartfelt. I smell a troll...
Nonetheless, you've definitely found an audience. The Daily Mail have been in touch, and are loving your work. They said they really liked the general elitism and the implied sexism with the Ally McBeal angle, but asked if next post you could try and work some racism or jingoism in as well? They don't need a full house, but ideally want at least three of the four. And try to mention the Royal Wedding.
Let's not forget other gems
Let's not forget other gems from this stalwart of the finest higher education establishments such as "cukoo", "who's" instead of "whose" and random capitalisation of "Veterinary" but not science. Add to that a grasp of grammar and sentence structure that is worse than that of my ten year old and I'm pleased to see that the old guard are showing us how it is done.
My hope is that this is, in reality, someone who is just bored and having some fun playing a parody of an element of our profession I thought long since extinct. My fear is that it is not.