Lawyers letting go of expensive leases

November 19, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

According to one company, lawyers are wanting out of their car leases more frequently than they were just two years ago.

LeaseTrader.com says lawyers who utilize their service are second in the number of vehicle leases up for trade than other professions. In 2008, 26 percent of lawyers got out of their expensive car leases; in 2010, the number jumped to 51 percent.

To be included in the report, a driver had to have a car valued at $40,000 or more in the LeaseTrader.com marketplace to escape the lease contract. The website allows people to take over leases or get out of their current lease.

Who’s trying to get out of their expensive leases most often? Doctors. Of the five professions listed, insurance brokers are doing the best – only 17 percent of people in that industry want out of their leases.

What I find most interesting about this snippet of data is that women are wanting out of their leases less frequently than men. Sixty-five percent of attorneys who wanted to give up their BMW or Mercedes leases were men; only 35 percent were women. Across the board in all the professions listed, women were far less likely to want out of their lease. The exception is Realtors, where it’s nearly a 50/50 split between males and females.

Why could this be? LeaseTrader.com hypothesizes it’s because women in general aren’t feeling the pain as much as men seem to be in this current economic climate. A possibility, but I’d offer a guess that it has to do with the number of female attorneys who would be able to afford a lease of $40,000 or more. The number of female partners is low. I glanced at the websites of two Indianapolis-based firms with locations around the state, country, and/or world. Less than 20 percent of partners are women.

Women are also more likely than men to work reduced hours or part time, making them less able to afford a higher-priced lease. Perhaps it’s just that women are more likely to buy their expensive car instead of leasing it.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Paul Ogden doing a fine job of remembering his peer Gary Welsh with the post below and a call for an Indy gettogether to celebrate Gary .... http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2016/05/indiana-loses-citizen-journalist-giant.html Castaways of Indiana, unite!

  2. It's unfortunate that someone has attempted to hijack the comments to promote his own business. This is not an article discussing the means of preserving the record; no matter how it's accomplished, ethics and impartiality are paramount concerns. When a party to litigation contracts directly with a reporting firm, it creates, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Court reporters, attorneys and judges are officers of the court and must abide by court rules as well as state and federal laws. Parties to litigation have no such ethical responsibilities. Would we accept insurance companies contracting with judges? This practice effectively shifts costs to the party who can least afford it while reducing costs for the party with the most resources. The success of our justice system depends on equal access for all, not just for those who have the deepest pockets.

  3. As a licensed court reporter in California, I have to say that I'm sure that at some point we will be replaced by speech recognition. However, from what I've seen of it so far, it's a lot farther away than three years. It doesn't sound like Mr. Hubbard has ever sat in a courtroom or a deposition room where testimony is being given. Not all procedures are the same, and often they become quite heated with the ends of question and beginning of answers overlapping. The human mind can discern the words to a certain extent in those cases, but I doubt very much that a computer can yet. There is also the issue of very heavy accents and mumbling. People speak very fast nowadays, and in order to do that, they generally slur everything together, they drop or swallow words like "the" and "and." Voice recognition might be able to produce some form of a transcript, but I'd be very surprised if it produces an accurate or verbatim transcript, as is required in the legal world.

  4. Really enjoyed the profile. Congratulations to Craig on living the dream, and kudos to the pros who got involved to help him realize the vision.

  5. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

ADVERTISEMENT