Legal Fees Advice (Newbie)

Keela

Just wondering if anyone can offer some information. My mother recently settled a personal injury claim out of court through personal injury board using a solicitor. My query is that there was an engineers report required which was €1600 Inc. Vat, however, when the solicitor was invoicing my mother for same, he put the €1600 figure on the invoice ex. Vat. Also the PIAB of €50 was entered on the invoice ex. VAT. This left me wondering, if the legal fee of €3500 ex. was sufficient of insuffient. The solicitor did not have to go to court, basically the work he did was arrange an engineers report, a medical report, 4 visits by my mother to his office, apx 10 letters and 10 phone calls??? He seams to me like he indirectly charged her a fee of 10%. I know percentage fees are not supposed to apply anymore but looking at the figures he took a total of 10% and legal fees on the invoice meerely stated legal fees and were not itemised? Can anyone shed some light on this for me please.

Spear

Moved from N&F.

blueythebear

Keela wrote: »

Just wondering if anyone can offer some information. My mother recently settled a personal injury claim out of court through personal injury board using a solicitor. My query is that there was an engineers report required which was €1600 Inc. Vat, however, when the solicitor was invoicing my mother for same, he put the €1600 figure on the invoice ex. Vat. Also the PIAB of €50 was entered on the invoice ex. VAT. This left me wondering, if the legal fee of €3500 ex. was sufficient of insuffient. The solicitor did not have to go to court, basically the work he did was arrange an engineers report, a medical report, 4 visits by my mother to his office, apx 10 letters and 10 phone calls??? He seams to me like he indirectly charged her a fee of 10%. I know percentage fees are not supposed to apply anymore but looking at the figures he took a total of 10% and legal fees on the invoice meerely stated legal fees and were not itemised? Can anyone shed some light on this for me please.

The €1600 does not incur further VAT. It seems from your post that the report was €1600 including VAT so the total figure paid by the solicitor is itemised in the bill as this is the amount he physically paid for the report.

PIAB cost again is exclusive of VAT amd the solicitor listed the actual amount paid.

You can always request a breakdown of the legal fees from the solicitor if you wish. However, €3,500 is probably not unreasonable if he got a good settlement. The alternative is lengthy and involved litigation so you pay a premium for the swift resolution of the matter.

Keela

Cheers for that. I've been onto the solicitor and he did indedd make an error by charging the VAT twice for the Engineeres report. There were ex. vat and inc. vat figures all underneath one another so it was very hard to make out. The PIAB was left at €50 Inc. Vat!! Good thing is we get a little over 200 euro back.

Thanks Again for your help

James Jones

It seems he didn't fulfil his legal requirements in Section 68 (1) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994 by providing you, on the taking of instructions , with particulars in writing of—
(a) the actual charges, or
(b) an estimate of the charges, or
(c) the basis on which the charges are to be made.

If he didn’t send you this letter BEFORE he started, then tell him you require a refund your fees or you will make a complaint to the Law Society.
Chances are he never sends out these letters and would rather refund your fees than have the Law Society trawl through all hie files.

blueythebear

James Jones wrote: »

It seems he didn't fulfil his legal requirements in Section 68 (1) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994 by providing you, on the taking of instructions , with particulars in writing of—
(a) the actual charges, or
(b) an estimate of the charges, or
(c) the basis on which the charges are to be made.

If he didn’t send you this letter BEFORE he started, then tell him you require a refund your fees or you will make a complaint to the Law Society.
Chances are he never sends out these letters and would rather refund your fees than have the Law Society trawl through all hie files.

Don't listen to the above advice. It's unnecessarily confrontational. It would appear that you're happy enough with the outcome so I'd suggest paying off the fees as is. Even if the solicitor did not give you a S68 letter, the solicitor is entitled to be paid for work done.

James Jones

blueythebear wrote: »

However, €3,500 is probably not unreasonable if he got a good settlement.

He should have got paid for the work he did which is not dependent on the amount of the settlement. Sound like you're a solicitor!

blueythebear wrote: »

Don't listen to the above advice. It's unnecessarily confrontational. It would appear that you're happy enough with the outcome so I'd suggest paying off the fees as is. Even if the solicitor did not give you a S68 letter, the solicitor is entitled to be paid for work done.

Yea right! Just take it and let the solicitor off with breaking the law and don’t let your personal experience of Rip Off Republic bother you. Don’t be too concerned that he probably gets away with treating all of his clients in a similar fashion.
Don’t worry that he originally charged you VAT that had already been paid, or that his fee for arranging an engineer’s report, a medical report, 4 visits by to his office, approx 10 letters and 10 phone calls came to the exact round number of €3500.
He should have told you (or estimated) how much arranging the report would cost and how much he charged for consultations, phone calls and letters.

Oh, and next time you go to the pub and you are asked for €9 for a pint, just accept it as well :rolleyes:!

injuriesboard

Hi,

The claimant application fee to InjuriesBoard.ie does not attract VAT and on the 1st February 2011 the fee was reduced from €50 to €45.
For information in relation to InjuriesBoard.ie please refer to our website -www.injuriesboard.ie.

Applications can be made directly to the Board or through a solicitor.

blueythebear

James Jones wrote: »

He should have got paid for the work he did which is not dependent on the amount of the settlement. Sound like you're a solicitor!




Yea right! Just take it and let the solicitor off with breaking the law and don’t let your personal experience of Rip Off Republic bother you. Don’t be too concerned that he probably gets away with treating all of his clients in a similar fashion.
Don’t worry that he originally charged you VAT that had already been paid, or that his fee for arranging an engineer’s report, a medical report, 4 visits by to his office, approx 10 letters and 10 phone calls came to the exact round number of €3500.
He should have told you (or estimated) how much arranging the report would cost and how much he charged for consultations, phone calls and letters.

Oh, and next time you go to the pub and you are asked for €9 for a pint, just accept it as well :rolleyes:!

It's impossible to set out a full fee schedule at the beginning of any litigation. Too many variables involved. The costs to the litigant would be enormous if a set fee was arranged for each item. Plus it would lead to solicitors banging letters out purely to run up costs. S68 letters are not gospel and are not intended to be. They are there are to give an indication to a client as to the anticipated costs. It could be more, it could be less, it depends on a multitude of variables that can't possible be predicted at the beginning of litigation. The pint analogy is unsuited as you are paying for a single definite item of fixed value.

James Jones

blueythebear wrote: »

It's impossible to set out a full fee schedule at the beginning of any litigation. Too many variables involved.

Thats why the legislation specifically allows for an estimate: "where the provision of particulars of the actual charges is not in the circumstances possible or practicable, an estimate (as near as may be) of the charges"

The costs to the litigant would be enormous if a set fee was arranged for each item.

Not so. I hired a solicitor who had software on his computer that billed me for each phone call he made to me or on my behalf on a per second basis from a per/hour fee. (ie a 120 second phone call was 1/30 of his hourly rate)

Plus it would lead to solicitors banging letters out purely to run up costs.

Only the dishonest ones!!!

S68 letters are not gospel and are not intended to be. They are there are to give an indication to a client as to the anticipated costs.

They are a legal requirement from a professional who has been hired to carry out legal work or give legal advice.

It could be more, it could be less, it depends on a multitude of variables that can't possible be predicted at the beginning of litigation.

Thats why the legislation states "where the provision of particulars of the actual charges or an estimate of such charges is not in the circumstances possible or practicable, the basis on which the charges are to be made" ie an hourly rate

The pint analogy is unsuited as you are paying for a single definite item of fixed value.

Don't agree with you there either as both the bar and the solicitor are required by law to inform customers in writing of their charges.

rescue16

Man this thread is getting way off topic it is gone into a total debate all from a small bit of advice the op requried:rolleyes:

blueythebear

James Jones wrote: »

Thats why the legislation specifically allows for an estimate: "where the provision of particulars of the actual charges is not in the circumstances possible or practicable, an estimate (as near as may be) of the charges"

You're making my point for me. When I say the S68 letter is not gospel, I am of course referring to where an estimate is made. Estimates are exactly that, estimates and not definitive.

James Jones wrote: »

Not so. I hired a solicitor who had software on his computer that billed me for each phone call he made to me or on my behalf on a per second basis from a per/hour fee. (ie a 120 second phone call was 1/30 of his hourly rate)

You'll see your costs run up very quickly with that type of system. Fair enough you will get transparency, but at a high cost most likely as unexpected problems crop up all the time in litigation causing more work that the client may not necessarily even know about.

James Jones wrote: »

Don't agree with you there either as both the bar and the solicitor are required by law to inform customers in writing of their charges.

The analogy doesn't make sense for the reasons I've already outlined.

blueythebear

rescue16 wrote: »

Man this thread is getting way off topic it is gone into a total debate all from a small bit of advice the op requried:rolleyes:

Yeah you're right actually. I'm officially abstaining from this one as of now.

Keela

Thanks guys, I really appreciate all of your information. I wouldn't normally leave myself open to being 'screwed' for want of a better word but when your in the office and the solicitor is talking the talk etc it's easy enough to get side tracked and then think when you get home and get annoyed over it. I did ask on a few occassions about the legal fee but I got the reply of 'listen, we can talk about that again' and don't worry 'we will be ok with you' .......

And while I do agree the work was done and the solicitor should be paid, it's not nice to think your being 'screwed' by someone.

In fact, he got paid before we did because the cheque arrived in my name to the solicitor's office, he got me to sign it and he then lodged it into his firm's account and called me back a week later and gave me a cheque from his firm for the remainder less the detuctions! This had already been done before I was told of the fees! The invoice and the cheque were handed over at the very same time !!

James Jones

Keela wrote: »

The cheque arrived in my name to the solicitor's office, he got me to sign it and he then lodged it into his firm's account and called me back a week later and gave me a cheque from his firm for the remainder less the detuctions! This had already been done before I was told of the fees! The invoice and the cheque were handed over at the very same time !!

Well, lie down and roll over or stand up for yourself and ask for a refund. The solicitor broke the law by contravening Section 68.— (3) "A solicitor shall not deduct or appropriate any amount in respect of all or any part of his charges from the amount of any damages or other moneys that become payable to a client of that solicitor arising out of any contentious business carried out on behalf of that client by that solicitor".

Before you make a complaint to the Law Society, write directly to the solicitor and make these points to him. Make sure not to phone him and keep everything in writing. I was treated in the exact same shoddy fashion by a solicitor but the threat of a complaint made them return a substantial sum. PM me if you need any further advice. I have now made two successful complaints to the Law Society and received refunds from two other solicitors having threatened a complaint.
Yeah, thats right, 4 solicitors in 4 separate matters ended up giving ME money;)!!

Keela

Cheers for that James ..... it all seamed a wee bit 'Irish' to me alright....;)