Concern over varied solicitor fees

Corruptable

Of just 65 firms that replied:

- Only one solicitor displayed prices, while none of 36 firms with a website published fees online.

- The national average fee for conveyancing was €1,302 - ranging from €750 in Leinster, outside Dublin to a high of €4,000 in Connacht/Ulster.

- Making a will went from €50 to €300, averaging at €119.

- A €5,200 difference was recorded in fees for taking out a grant of probate - which allows the assets of the deceased to be gathered and distributed. The lowest quote of €950 was recorded in Munster, with the highest price of €6,150 found in the Rest of Leinster area.

VAT and additional costs, including outlays, can also be added on, the NCA warned.

Link: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0209/breaking43.html

Not belittling the substance of the issue, which does deserve consideration, I think this displaying prices idea is a bit like reducing the profession to a professional service industry equivilent of McDonalds, KFC or your local takeaway.

I can see the advantage for consumers, but I mean a list on the wall with something like "Standard Will €20, Standard Debt Collection & Enforcement 30% of debt, Standard Drink Driving Charge representation €300, etc." just doesn't seem right.

johnnyskeleton

Corruptable wrote: »

Link: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0209/breaking43.html

Not belittling the substance of the issue, which does deserve consideration, I think this displaying prices idea is a bit like reducing the profession to a professional service industry equivilent of McDonalds, KFC or your local takeaway.

I can see the advantage for consumers, but I mean a list on the wall with something like "Standard Will €20, Standard Debt Collection & Enforcement 30% of debt, Standard Drink Driving Charge representation €300, etc." just doesn't seem right.

A general list of typical prices would be a good idea, and solicitors could justify an increase in any particular item with regard to why, in that particular case, it was more complex. Likewise, a national publication of average solicitors fees probably wounldn't be such a bad idea, as people would then be able to ascertain whether they are paying above or below par for their particular solicitor.

McCrack

I would not agree with published prices simply because no two instructions are the same. S68 is perfectly adequate in terms of giving the legal consumer a basis for charges. Legal services are too varied to be able to give a precise estimate.

All this shows is it's wise to shop around.

Reloc8

This will all be spun in a negative way against the Solicitor's profession, in the current climate (sure nobody should ever have to pay a lawyer anything, the feckers), but two things come to mind :-

1. Nobody can make you retain a given solicitor. Shop around like you would for anything else.

2. Anyone with an ounce of integrity will at least acknowledge that Solicitors (I am not one) cannot be accused of price-fixing cartels, on this evidence.

I mean for gods sake - if the prices were all within 5% of each other there would be a source of genuine concern.

edit : In other news, some cars cost less than others, while others cost more.

johnnyskeleton

Somewhere between the free market anything goes view of legal services and the ah jaysus isn't it unfair that they charge more than minimum wage, there has to be some rational way of determining legal fees. It seems to me that if customers could be satisfied that they won't be overcharged and f lawyers could act knowing that their fees aren't under constant impossible scrutiny, then the whole system could carry on and get the job done.

dahamsta

I was delighted to see a price list added to the counters in doctors and dentists surgery, and fail to see why solicitors shouldn't do the same, as outlined by johnnyskeleton above. Unless they have something to hide?

johnfás

dahamsta wrote: »

I was delighted to see a price list added to the counters in doctors and dentists surgery, and fail to see why solicitors shouldn't do the same, as outlined by johnnyskeleton above. Unless they have something to hide?

Unlike your doctor I'll give you your first session free. But, no, I won't quote you an indicative price,without any details, for the sale of a property because this depends on whether the property you are selling is registered or unregistered land, whether your house is solvent or whether you are in negative equity and whether your property includes unlawful development or not. All of these issues will result in more work for me and hence a higher fee. I'll quote an easy conveyance a low price and a complex conveyance a higher price. Obviously.

johnnyskeleton

johnfás wrote: »

dahamsta wrote: »

I was delighted to see a price list added to the counters in doctors and dentists surgery, and fail to see why solicitors shouldn't do the same, as outlined by johnnyskeleton above. Unless they have something to hide?

Unlike your doctor I'll give you your first session free. But, no, I won't quote you an indicative price,without any details, for the sale of a property because this depends on whether the property you are selling is registered or unregistered land, whether your house is solvent or whether you are in negative equity and whether your property includes unlawful development or not. All of these issues will result in more work for me and hence a higher fee. I'll quote an easy conveyance a low price and a complex conveyance a higher price. Obviously.

I suppose the question then is could there not be prices for each type eg:

1 simple conveyance eg inter spouse transfer 800
2 standard conveyance eg normal purchase 1000 registered land 1200 unregistered
3. Complex high value or commercial coneyance 2000-5000
4 outlay etc
5 if there are mire than x requisitions or y probelms that have to be dealt with, an additional fee of 200-500 will be charged.

Forgive me if the figures are way off, but wouldn't that be reasonable and give customers some certainty? Any truly exceptional case could cost signiicantly more, but they could be told it will be around double the fee.

steddyeddy

Reloc8 wrote: »

This will all be spun in a negative way against the Solicitor's profession, in the current climate (sure nobody should ever have to pay a lawyer anything, the feckers), but two things come to mind :-

1. Nobody can make you retain a given solicitor. Shop around like you would for anything else.

2. Anyone with an ounce of integrity will at least acknowledge that Solicitors (I am not one) cannot be accused of price-fixing cartels, on this evidence.

I mean for gods sake - if the prices were all within 5% of each other there would be a source of genuine concern.

edit : In other news, some cars cost less than others, while others cost more.

GPs provide varied service but have a set rate and certainly dont differ as much as tje legal profession do.

johnfás

steddyeddy wrote: »

GPs provide varied service but have a set rate and certainly dont differ as much as tje legal profession do.

You're not really comparing like with like there. The majority of the work the GP does 'on your file' is when you are sitting in front of them in a session. I'll tell you how much I'll charge you for an hour's meeting but unlike your GP when you leave the meeting I may have anywhere between 0 and 100 hours work to do before I see you next. And obviously I will charge accordingly. I'll also quote that to you having reviewed the matter in outline (for free) and then you can take my quote or get one elsewhere. You pay a solicitor for their expertise and their time.

digzy

a few years back the going rate was about 1% for conveyancing. my house cost 430k so i was charged 4300 + vat.
wonder if the house cost 200k would i've been charged 200k + vat!

i cant imagine there'd be a huge difference in workload between the two cases yet it's double the money.:rolleyes:

the legal profession have been fleecing us all for years. you cant do certain things without them.

as regards the pricing on display, why not? dentists have to display a fixed prices for certain items and a range for others. surely asking the same of the legal profession isn't out of order.

McCrack

digzy wrote: »

a few years back the going rate was about 1% for conveyancing. my house cost 430k so i was charged 4300 + vat.
wonder if the house cost 200k would i've been charged 200k + vat!

i cant imagine there'd be a huge difference in workload between the two cases yet it's double the money.:rolleyes:

the legal profession have been fleecing us all for years. you cant do certain things without them.

as regards the pricing on display, why not? dentists have to display a fixed prices for certain items and a range for others. surely asking the same of the legal profession isn't out of order.

Populist to say. I'd like to hear you flesh this claim out with convincing argument.

Jev/N

digzy wrote: »

a few years back the going rate was about 1% for conveyancing

That's against regulations as far as I'm aware

FreudianSlippers

People would be a lot more unhappy if solicitors/barristers just started charging a set rate by the hour.

finisklin

I have to agree with digzy in that a fee as a percentage of the value of the transaction is not representative of the work involved for a solicitor. 1% of the value of a house for €400k versus €200k hits the nail on the head.

I am unaware if this currently against regulations but I did receive a number of quotes as a percentage and not a flat fee a number of years ago.

Amazotheamazing

Corruptable wrote: »

Not belittling the substance of the issue, which does deserve consideration, I think this displaying prices idea is a bit like reducing the profession to a professional service industry equivilent of McDonalds, KFC or your local takeaway.

I can see the advantage for consumers, but I mean a list on the wall with something like "Standard Will €20, Standard Debt Collection & Enforcement 30% of debt, Standard Drink Driving Charge representation €300, etc." just doesn't seem right.

It's a service industry though, don't over romanticise it. There is definitely scope for some sort of system as suggested by Johnny above.

johnnyskeleton

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

It's a service industry though, don't over romanticise it.

exactly. It's a strange situation where lawyers say it is impossible to estimate the costs of a task but when costs are taxed by the taxing master regard is had to comparator cases.

I don't believe that when taking on a case lawyers don't have some idea of what to charge. It is also an unfortunate reality that fees may artificially inflate for a particularly rich clients (or else be discounted for a particularly impoverised client).

Some basic system of guideance is required. Having said that, there is the risk that whoever controls such a system might have unrealistic expectations or bias eg a divorce costs 20k plus, but a drink driving should cost no more than 300 or vice versa. But a genuine system would at least give some idea, so if a solicitor was charging three times the recommended rate, it must be for some reason eg particularly good solicitor or tricky case.

Milk & Honey

finisklin wrote: »

I have to agree with digzy in that a fee as a percentage of the value of the transaction is not representative of the work involved for a solicitor. 1% of the value of a house for €400k versus €200k hits the nail on the head.

I am unaware if this currently against regulations but I did receive a number of quotes as a percentage and not a flat fee a number of years ago.

When something goes wrong are you going to sue for half the price of the house?

johnfás

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

exactly. It's a strange situation where lawyers say it is impossible to estimate the costs of a task but when costs are taxed by the taxing master regard is had to comparator cases.

I don't believe that when taking on a case lawyers don't have some idea of what to charge. It is also an unfortunate reality that fees may artificially inflate for a particularly rich clients (or else be discounted for a particularly impoverised client).

Some basic system of guideance is required. Having said that, there is the risk that whoever controls such a system might have unrealistic expectations or bias eg a divorce costs 20k plus, but a drink driving should cost no more than 300 or vice versa. But a genuine system would at least give some idea, so if a solicitor was charging three times the recommended rate, it must be for some reason eg particularly good solicitor or tricky case.

Again you are slightly missing the point. It is very easy to provide an estimation of costs, when the matter is in front of you. Last year I had my bathroom redone and the builder who did it had to come on site to see what was involved before he gave me a quote based on what was in front of him. I then had the choice to get another quote, which I did, and then I went back to the first guy who reduced his price and we agreed a deal. Solicitors are legally obliged to give you a fee estimation or the basis on which the fee will be calculated. Take it, for free, and shop around. Honestly.

The taxing master is again besides the point because it is an after the fact examination.

johnnyskeleton

But even for bathrooms the builder can provide an estimate of how much they cost in general without seeing the place. So too, it shouldn't be too difficult to put an average cost of a standard, complex and commerical conveyance on the Internet.

johnnyskeleton

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

But even for bathrooms the builder can provide an estimate of how much they cost in general without seeing the place. So too, it shouldn't be too difficult to put an average cost of a standard, complex and commerical conveyance on the Internet.

When you call a builder about a bathroom you can give him an idea of the size of the room and what you want done without him seeing it. That will give him some idea reasonably quickly of the fees involved.

However when you ring a solicitor and say "I have a divorce, was married to her for 10 years and left her 6 years ago, what's the price?" the solicitor still won't honestly be able to give an estimate as it requires an awful lot more information to make an actual estimate. That information is usually gained in the free first consultation. Once he has an idea of the case he's obliged to give an outline of potential fees if requested.

Milk & Honey

A huge amount depends on how contentious the matter is. If one party is self employed and not co-operating, forensic accountants may have to be employed and there will be numerous consultations to gather information. The hearing in court may be protracted if there is a conflict of evidence.
It is completely different if there is no conflict as to the facts, everything is admitted and agreed.
Some people keep ringing the solicitor for half hour rants against their other half, whilst others just get on with their lives until the case comes on. Others have to be constantly reminded to produce documentation. Some have to be told 50 times that their other half will not be expected to live on €5 per week.

johnnyskeleton

Deleted User wrote: »

When you call a builder about a bathroom you can give him an idea of the size of the room and what you want done without him seeing it. That will give him some idea reasonably quickly of the fees involved.

However when you ring a solicitor and say "I have a divorce, was married to her for 10 years and left her 6 years ago, what's the price?" the solicitor still won't honestly be able to give an estimate as it requires an awful lot more information to make an actual estimate. That information is usually gained in the free first consultation. Once he has an idea of the case he's obliged to give an outline of potential fees if requested.

Milk & Honey wrote: »

A huge amount depends on how contentious the matter is. If one party is self employed and not co-operating, forensic accountants may have to be employed and there will be numerous consultations to gather information. The hearing in court may be protracted if there is a conflict of evidence.
It is completely different if there is no conflict as to the facts, everything is admitted and agreed.
Some people keep ringing the solicitor for half hour rants against their other half, whilst others just get on with their lives until the case comes on. Others have to be constantly reminded to produce documentation. Some have to be told 50 times that their other half will not be expected to live on €5 per week.

Well there are two issues in this thread.

First, why can't solicitors publish a list of non contentious fees? This could be based on a gradient scale for e.g. conveyancing (see above) or could be a flat rate for all clients (e.g. wills) and so on for fairly standard issues. If their fee is a percentage of the house price or estate in probate they should say. If there are different fees for a non constested and a contested probate they should quote the non contested fee and inform people that if it is contested it will cost more.

For all these standard tasks, there is no reason why the fees can't be easily set out.

The second point is that, when it comes to litigation, there could be a set of fees published as to what a standard case would cost. Let's say for a divorce the "standard" was X for a non contested divorce and Y for a contested divorce. If a solicitor charged X times 3 for a non contested divorce, the client could rightly ask why, whether it is to do with a novel factor that had to be dealt with even though it was non contested, unforseen circumstances e.g. changes in the law making it more time consuming, or that the particular solicitor and/or barrister is in very high demand and therefore informed them, at the outset, that their fees would likely be 3 times the "going rate".

In a contested matter, and they charge 3 times Y, they will no doubt be able to point to the factors that you have identified. But, the standard rate would usually encompass a standard package of work e.g. issue proceedings, voluntary discovery, exchange of reports and a 2 hour hearing. If a case had to have discovery motions, fights over reports, other motions and a 2 day hearing, then a fee of 3 times Y could easily be demonstrated to the client. Moreover, if the client is told that if all goes to play then Y is the price, the client will know what everything outside of the Y package will cost them more and they will therefore expect it.

I'm not trying to argue with the truism that every case is different so every fee is different, but there are two important points.

First, irrespective of the different courses of litigation, other matters such as wills and conveyancing can be fairly well fixed, as can say a one day district court hearing. I see no reason why these fees can't be published. Certainly I don't see why the romanticising as Amazo puts it of litigation and litigation fees should affect these standard tasks. Bear in mind that even when a standard task becomes a non standard task, the client will be told of same.

Second, when it comes to litigation, of course it is very difficult to predict what will happen. But being told that a case will cost X per hour for a potentially uncapped number of hours does not give the client any real insight into what is being charged. Moreover, clients would be in a better position if they were given some basic information as to what a standard case involves and how much it would normally cost. That doesn't bind the solicitor to charge same, it simply puts the client in a better bargaining position.

In any event, coming back to the on the phone/internet quote, it should be possible to say a standard divorce is X, a complex divorce is Y and a highly complex divorce can be up to Z. The decision as to whether it is standard, complex or highly complex can be left over until the first consultation.

Milk & Honey

Whatever about standard prices for a conveyance or a drafting a will, these are not the areas of law which are relatively expensive. It is impossible to forecast how much a day in the district court will cost at the start of a case. Trying to get listed in most District Court for a civil case is pot luck. It is not unusual to have to return three times having "not been reached on the day". Same in other courts. Look at tomorrows legal Diary. There are many cases listed which will not be heard. Nevertheless solicitors will have to turn up prepared along with witnesses and stand around for the day on the offchance the case will get on. How can prices be quoted in advance with that kind of nonsense? It is impossible to say what difficulty there will be with serving documents. Putting standard prices on display would be like the price of airline tickets on certain airlines. Inevitably the final price would be different. Some unscrupulous individuals could offer seemingly low prices to attract business and then sneak in the higher charges through the small print.
People should choose solicitors on the basis of reputation, not a comparison of published prices which will never be charged.

johnnyskeleton

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Whatever about standard prices for a conveyance or a drafting a will, these are not the areas of law which are relatively expensive. It is impossible to forecast how much a day in the district court will cost at the start of a case. Trying to get listed in most District Court for a civil case is pot luck. It is not unusual to have to return three times having "not been reached on the day". Same in other courts. Look at tomorrows legal Diary. There are many cases listed which will not be heard. Nevertheless solicitors will have to turn up prepared along with witnesses and stand around for the day on the offchance the case will get on. How can prices be quoted in advance with that kind of nonsense? It is impossible to say what difficulty there will be with serving documents. Putting standard prices on display would be like the price of airline tickets on certain airlines. Inevitably the final price would be different. Some unscrupulous individuals could offer seemingly low prices to attract business and then sneak in the higher charges through the small print.
People should choose solicitors on the basis of reputation, not a comparison of published prices which will never be charged.

€X for the hearing plus €Y per adjournment? Could they not just quote like that to resolve the issue you raise?

johnnyskeleton

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

€X for the hearing plus €Y per adjournment? Could they not just quote like that to resolve the issue you raise?

There is also the issue of opposition costs to consider in any case which are always a variable.

johnnyskeleton

Kayroo wrote: »

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

€X for the hearing plus €Y per adjournment? Could they not just quote like that to resolve the issue you raise?

There is also the issue of opposition costs to consider in any case which are always a variable.

Sure, although that is easily remedied by "if you lose you could hav to pay the other sides costs which could be the same as ours or greater"

See, that's where your argument falls down. If you win you don't pay, therefore there are no costs. Quite often if you lose you only pay the other sides costs, which you can't quote anyway.

So for any contentious matter, where costs are the most keenly felt, it's not even practical to quote costs.

For non contentious matters I don't totally disagree with you by the way although the issue of complexity is hard to overcome

Milk & Honey

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

€X for the hearing plus €Y per adjournment? Could they not just quote like that to resolve the issue you raise?

That is the problem. Turn up for hearing, sit around until 3pm and then be adjourned. Is there a charge for a hearing or an adjournment? That is why the quote is per hour.

johnnyskeleton

Deleted User wrote: »

See, that's where your argument falls down. If you win you don't pay, therefore there are no costs. Quite often if you lose you only pay the other sides costs, which you can't quote anyway.

My understanding is that the above is not correct. You still have to pay the costs, but you may seek an order for the other side to pay towards your costs. But you still owe them at the end of the day. None of this is a reason why a solicitor can't say how much a case would usually cost.

So for any contentious matter, where costs are the most keenly felt, it's not even practical to quote costs.

Its not only practical its mandatory. Especially when the order for costs does not cover the full bill. Clients often don't understand why after being told about costs in vague terms they suddenly don't get all their costs paid by the other side.

Moreover, if a solicitor quoted a fee of 5k to a client, they can't then turn around and ask for 20k for costs from the other side. This transparency of pricing therefore also helps unsuccessful litigants.

johnnyskeleton

Milk & Honey wrote: »

That is the problem. Turn up for hearing, sit around until 3pm and then be adjourned. Is there a charge for a hearing or an adjournment? That is why the quote is per hour.

This whole argument is getting very convoluted.

If a client agrees to a per hour basis then there is no problem. But this doesnt always happen in litigation. Instead, fees are often charged on a job lot.

Now, the question is, is there any problem for a solicitor setting a per task, per day or per hour fee and stating this clearly in advance? Answer, no.

Milk & Honey

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

This whole argument is getting very convoluted.

If a client agrees to a per hour basis then there is no problem. But this doesnt always happen in litigation. Instead, fees are often charged on a job lot.

Now, the question is, is there any problem for a solicitor setting a per task, per day or per hour fee and stating this clearly in advance? Answer, no.

That is what happens. It doesn't tell the client how much the eventual bill will be.
You have already stated
"But being told that a case will cost X per hour for a potentially uncapped number of hours does not give the client any real insight into what is being charged."

Fees cannot be charged on a job lot. A bill of costs has to be fully itemised and justified. Trying to give an estimate of total cost in advance is like saying a meal will cost x in a restaurant without knowing what is on the menu, how many courses are served and what time of the day it is at.

johnnyskeleton

Milk & Honey wrote: »

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

This whole argument is getting very convoluted.

If a client agrees to a per hour basis then there is no problem. But this doesnt always happen in litigation. Instead, fees are often charged on a job lot.

Now, the question is, is there any problem for a solicitor setting a per task, per day or per hour fee and stating this clearly in advance? Answer, no.

That is what happens. It doesn't tell the client how much the eventual bill will be.
You have already stated
"But being told that a case will cost X per hour for a potentially uncapped number of hours does not give the client any real insight into what is being charged."

Fees cannot be charged on a job lot. A bill of costs has to be fully itemised and justified. Trying to give an estimate of total cost in advance is like saying a meal will cost x in a restaurant without knowing what is on the menu, how many courses are served and what time of the day it is at.

I feel you are avoiding the question. A solicitor and client are free to agree costs on any terms that are not prohibited. I understood that they could charge fees on a job lot or per task basis.

But your analogy is interesting. Sure, the exact bill will not be known until you order your food, and every dinner bill will be different depending on what is required. But that doesn't stop resteraunts publishing lists of each items cost, and/or reviews of the reteraunt giving a sample of eg 2 course for around €30 and so on.

Any estimate will not of course be binding, but it is a kind of crazy system where solicitors in sone instances don't give any general outline at all.

Milk & Honey

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I feel you are avoiding the question. A solicitor and client are free to agree costs on any terms that are not prohibited. I understood that they could charge fees on a job lot or per task basis.

But your analogy is interesting. Sure, the exact bill will not be known until you order your food, and every dinner bill will be different depending on what is required. But that doesn't stop resteraunts publishing lists of each items cost, and/or reviews of the reteraunt giving a sample of eg 2 course for around €30 and so on.

Any estimate will not of course be binding, but it is a kind of crazy system where solicitors in sone instances don't give any general outline at all.

Solicitors are obliged to give a letter setting out the charge or the basis of the charge under S68 of the Solicitors Acts. It is all very well giving job lot fees for some things which are reasonably predictable, but litigation is definitely not. The idea of quoting prices is to enable comparison. The trouble is comparison is impossible.