Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Legal Fees
Options
-
23-05-2013 10:55am#1I am going through a divorce at the moment and my solicitor originally quoted a fixed sum for dealing with my case. However, last week, I received an email from him where he has increased the cost of dealing with my divorce by a further 2.5K euro. I asked for an explanation for this and have been (I feel) "fogged" by a list of dates of emails exchanged and letters written/read and meetings held.
I had believed that the quote I was originally given, would have been a fair assessment of the work my solicitor expected to carry out and the lack of clarity about the "need" for increasing the quoted fee by 2.5K (plus VAT, of course, which really affects my pocket, too), has me very confused.
Do I have any rights relating to this unforeseen increase and can a solicitor increase an original estimate, which I thought was a contractual agreement in the first instance? I am wholly at sea here.Tagged:0
Comments
-
Solicitors only provide estimates, you don't find out the bill until the work is done.0
-
Okay - I can accept that. However, the work is not done. My divorce hasn't gone to court yet, so it is still a work in progress. My point is that my solicitor made an original estimate to handle the entire legal aspect of my divorce. He has now basically blind-sided me with a revised estimate, part-way through the proceedings, which has increased his original estimate by 2.5K and is not providing me with a satisfactory explanation for this increase.0
-
Okay - I can accept that. However, the work is not done. My divorce hasn't gone to court yet, so it is still a work in progress. My point is that my solicitor made an original estimate to handle the entire legal aspect of my divorce. He has now basically blind-sided me with a revised estimate, part-way through the proceedings, which has increased his original estimate by 2.5K and is not providing me with a satisfactory explanation for this increase.
First ask for solicitor to set out all costs and fees todate, with an estimate of what's yet to come. Solicitors can only guess future work one divorce could be 4 hours work another could be 400. The more one party argues in the divorce the more it costs.
If you are not happy with bill then ask for the bill to be taxed either by the local county reg. or the taxing master of the high court.0 -
I am going through a divorce at the moment and my solicitor originally quoted a fixed sum for dealing with my case. However, last week, I received an email from him where he has increased the cost of dealing with my divorce by a further 2.5K euro. I asked for an explanation for this and have been (I feel) "fogged" by a list of dates of emails exchanged and letters written/read and meetings held.
I had believed that the quote I was originally given, would have been a fair assessment of the work my solicitor expected to carry out and the lack of clarity about the "need" for increasing the quoted fee by 2.5K (plus VAT, of course, which really affects my pocket, too), has me very confused.
Do I have any rights relating to this unforeseen increase and can a solicitor increase an original estimate, which I thought was a contractual agreement in the first instance? I am wholly at sea here.
You should get another solicitor. Your solicitor has quoted you a price knowing full well that he can increase it. All contact with the solicitor can be billed. Every time you ring up it is another additional item of charge. He couldn't have known when he gave the original estimate that you would contact him or email him. It is the old builders trick of giving an estimate knowing full well that inevitable extras will arise and the original estimate goes out the window and new and massive charges are piled on.0 -
You should get another solicitor. Your solicitor has quoted you a price knowing full well that he can increase it. All contact with the solicitor can be billed. Every time you ring up it is another additional item of charge. He couldn't have known when he gave the original estimate that you would contact him or email him. It is the old builders trick of giving an estimate knowing full well that inevitable extras will arise and the original estimate goes out the window and new and massive charges are piled on.
Quite the anti lawyer slant there. It's quite unfair to compare fees or estimates to some sort of trick.
OP a Solicitors estimate is only an estimate and is it subject to change if there is more work than originally thought. I'm assuming that your Solicitor isn't seeking payment now but is just informing you about a change to the fee's estimate? if so they are inline with Law Society practice.
If you believe the fees are unfair you can have them taxed and after that you can complain to the Law Society.
You will find more information at their website here.0 -
Advertisement
-
valleyoftheunos wrote: »Quite the anti lawyer slant there. It's quite unfair to compare fees or estimates to some sort of trick.
here.
It happens all of the time in family law. People do not know what they are getting into and are given the come hither of a fixed fee. After that the extras pile on without warning until the solicitor decides to show what has really happened. It is a low thing to do and just because it is common does not make it right.0 -
It happens all of the time in family law. People do not know what they are getting into and are given the come hither of a fixed fee. After that the extras pile on without warning until the solicitor decides to show what has really happened. It is a low thing to do and just because it is common does not make it right.
"Happens all the time" isn't exactly empirical evidence though is it. A fixed fee is very different to an estimate and Solicitors are entitled to be paid for the work they do. That you seem not to value that work neither makes it "low" nor wrong.
The Law Soc take complaints about fees very seriously and fine solicitors found to be in breach. Complaints about fees are best addressed there.0 -
So as a solicitor you would like me to tell my client when asked about fees ' I really don't know and no I cant give you a rough estimate because that would be dishonest' ????It happens all of the time in family law. People do not know what they are getting into and are given the come hither of a fixed fee. After that the extras pile on without warning until the solicitor decides to show what has really happened. It is a low thing to do and just because it is common does not make it right.0 -
When is a fixed fee not a fixed fee?
The key term in the OP was "fixed sum".
If we are to believe the OP and the solicitor did in fact quote the fee as "fixed" what fallback has the solicitor in increasing that fee without (at least) prior agreement with the client BEFORE the work is done and charged for.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
valleyoftheunos wrote: »When it's an estimate.
Ok, I see in the second post by the OP that the quote was not a fixed sum but an estimate..........fair enough.........
The second point still applies. Is the solicitor within their rights to complete and charge for work that has not been agreed with the client?0 -
Ok, I see in the second post by the OP that the quote was not a fixed sum but an estimate..........fair enough.........
The second point still applies. Is the solicitor within their rights to complete and charge for work that has not been agreed with the client?
Well that depends, it wouldn't be workable for a Solicitor to have to get approval from a client for every step to be taken in a matter and every letter or phone call made on the client's behalf. On the other hand a client's approval is required for certain things such as whether to engage in litigation, to settle a case.
My understanding of the OP's secodn post here is that the Solicitor has sent a revised estimate of what the entire costs will be and is not seeking payment of that amount right now.
I sympathise with the OP that it is difficult to find out that some thing is going to cost more than they originally thought but if it is going to require more work it is only fair that the Solicitor be paid for it.0 -
It happens all of the time in family law. People do not know what they are getting into and are given the come hither of a fixed fee. After that the extras pile on without warning until the solicitor decides to show what has really happened. It is a low thing to do and just because it is common does not make it right.
So are you talking about:
(a) Fixed fees, or,
(b) Fee estimates?
A fixed fee is fixed. An estimate is an estimate, and it costs more when extra work arises.
Solicitors should be able to foresee that they will have to contact their client, or that the client may have to contact them. However, certain things cannot be accurately predicted.
In litigation, unforeseen extra work is sometimes caused by two major factors, in my view:
1. The other party.
2. The client.
The other party's job is to do the best they can for themselves. That goal is probably in direct conflict with a solicitor's client. Much of this can be anticipated. Some of this cannot. The other party might raise discovery issues, with which it may be difficult to comply. This can be time-consuming and expensive. The other party may be unreasonable in allowing inspection facilities of a vehicle or a place. The solicitor may have to apply to court for an order for inspection facilities.
Clients can cause great difficulties by inertia. Some fail to act on advice or at all. Some clients put their heads in the sand, ignore correspondence and don't return phone calls. This can make progressing the case a feat which ranges from slow, to difficult, to impossible. It causes more work in diarying matters forward, getting the file out again, attempting to contact the client, failing to contact him again, and so forth. If this carries on, the other side may bring a motion to progress their case. The solicitor will then have to deal with the motion on behalf of his client. There will be attendant work and costs.
Some clients want to meet their solicitor and have long discussions that take hours. Long discussions are sometimes required, but some clients take this to extremes, involving unrealistic ideas and circular arguments. Some clients regularly call in unannounced, even though they are asked not to do so. Some clients want to ring several times per week, even though there may be no good reason to ring so often.
Some of this extra work amounts to nothing more than a pointless sideshow that must be endured. It's all work though, and somebody has to pay for it.
The 'old builders trick' is a poor analogy wrt fees in litigation. Building is not contentious work. A builder doesn't generally have somebody acting against him who is attempting to dissasemble his work, so those types of variables cannot enter into the cost of the work.0 -
Sure, there are unpredictables but it is for the solicitor to explain the risks, not for the client to know them. The solicitor is supposed to send a section 68 letter explaining the costs before they start work on the file but as far as I've seen these are a joke.
Would be interested to see what the OP got. Was it an estimate that looked more like a fixed fee to the uninitiated?
You shouldn't have to be a lawyer to work out what your lawyer is charging you.
If extra costs arise, the lawyer should be able to say (with a clean conscience) "Ok, the risk of X, Y or Z that I told you had a 50/50 likelihood or arising has materialised so I have to charge the extra EUR500 I told you about to meet this challenge."
What more often happens is "yeah there's more work than I expected so pay up the extra whatever or you'll have to get a new lawyer to run your case next tuesday." Not acceptable.
More common than both is probably something in between the two.0 -
What you have written is not correct. A solicitor is supposed to explain the risks in inherent in the case, to include the risks of an award of costs being made against an unsuccessful litigant. However, with respect to fee estimates, he must either describe his actual charges, or an estimate of charges, or the basis of the charges.Love nor Money wrote: »Sure, there are unpredictables but it is for the solicitor to explain the risks, not for the client to know them.
Easy for you to say. Put your money where your mouth is, metaphorically speaking. Give five examples of the risks you are talking about with regard to extra work for the purposes of costs. Then explain how those risks either can or should be measured and put into percentages.Love nor Money wrote: »If extra costs arise, the lawyer should be able to say (with a clean conscience) "Ok, the risk of X, Y or Z that I told you had a 50/50 likelihood or arising has materialised so I have to charge the extra EUR500 I told you about to meet this challenge.0 -
The Mustard wrote: »What you have written is not correct. A solicitor is supposed to explain the risks in inherent in the case, to include the risks of an award of costs being made against an unsuccessful litigant. However, with respect to fee estimates, he must either describe his actual charges, or an estimate of charges, or the basis of the charges.
I'm not setting out to give a lesson on the law society rules on what you need to specify in your estimates. Those are the minimum standards. My point is that the minimum standards prescribe an empty formula. A client doesn't actually know what the cost really is. I'm saying, a good lawyer should rise above that minimum standard and do their client a better service than that.The Mustard wrote: »Easy for you to say. Put your money where your mouth is, metaphorically speaking. Give five examples of the risks you are talking about with regard to extra work for the purposes of costs. Then explain how those risks either can or should be measured and put into percentages.
1. If we or you screw up and don't do what's necessary to get reply to particulars back on time, you will have to pay EUR1,000 for a motion
2. We will most likely (80% chance) have to do an affidavit of discovery. That will involve work by you and by us, which will cost EUR 800 and an additional E300 per hour if we have to sort out the documents.
3. If you decide to fight issue X, instead of agreeing that issue with the other side, we will have to engage a quantity surveyor/engineer/valuer to dispute it and that will cost EUR1,000-EUR1,500 plus vat.
4. [Here's one that every client should be told] You can send a letter without prejudice save as to cost, offering agreement on the basis that the court won't find out about it until the case has been decided, so that if it was reasonable, you can get a costs order in your favour. This applies not only to an agreement on the whole case but on distinct issues within a case, as sometimes a small issue can give rise to a huge amount of time and cost.
5. My knowledge runs out here...0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13636
The Mustard wrote: »What you have written is not correct. A solicitor is supposed to explain the risks in inherent in the case, to include the risks of an award of costs being made against an unsuccessful litigant. However, with respect to fee estimates, he must either describe his actual charges, or an estimate of charges, or the basis of the charges.
Easy for you to say. Put your money where your mouth is, metaphorically speaking. Give five examples of the risks you are talking about with regard to extra work for the purposes of costs. Then explain how those risks either can or should be measured and put into percentages.
How about, in a family law case:
1) contested discovery; 50:50
2) a motion to attend ADR; 30:70
3) a case being adjourned due to a judge being sick; 70:30
4) a Hague convention issue; 20:80
5) an appeal 50:50
Such percentages being based on a solicitors general experience rather than an assessment of the specific case.0 -
Fair dues to you, you accepted the challenge!
That's a No True Scotsman argument right there.Love nor Money wrote: »I'm not setting out to give a lesson on the law society rules on what you need to specify in your estimates. Those are the minimum standards. My point is that the minimum standards prescribe an empty formula. A client doesn't actually know what the cost really is. I'm saying, a good lawyer should rise above that minimum standard and do their client a better service than that.
However, you make some interesting points.
Whilst this suggestion may sound sensible on its own, it is completely impractical to have to detail every step of the litigation process at the outset, charting the possibilities of what may happen if the client starts to screw up his own case. If that was the case, one would have to go through all of the possibilities with non compliance with discovery, disclosure, failure to deliver a defence, failure to attend medical appointments. The potential permutations would require a book to describe what you ask.Love nor Money wrote: »1. If we or you screw up and don't do what's necessary to get reply to particulars back on time, you will have to pay EUR1,000 for a motion
It could take half a day to prepare a fee estimate giving the level of detail that you suggest, and somebody would have to pay for that.
And if the solicitor screws it up, as opposed to the client, he will bear the cost of the motion himself.
This is relevant to family law, for sure. I am more inclined to go with johnnyskeleton's suggestion, which is still along similar lines to yours.Love nor Money wrote: »2. We will most likely (80% chance) have to do an affidavit of discovery. That will involve work by you and by us, which will cost EUR 800 and an additional E300 per hour if we have to sort out the documents.
Interesting, but this type of issue may or may not be something which is capable of being predicted at the beginning.Love nor Money wrote: »3. If you decide to fight issue X, instead of agreeing that issue with the other side, we will have to engage a quantity surveyor/engineer/valuer to dispute it and that will cost EUR1,000-EUR1,500 plus vat.
For example; "If you don't do X to mitigate your damage, the consequences will be Y"
However, it is often the case that salient facts are not known until certain expert reports are got at the outset of the work, probably before proceedings are issued.
Very often the case can't go anywhere until expert reports are got.
You are talking about lodgements/tenders, I think. At the outset of a case, before medical reports have been seen, it would generally be too early to put a figure on damages. There is a time and a place to discuss lodgements/tenders with clients, and it's not at the outset.Love nor Money wrote: »4. [Here's one that every client should be told] You can send a letter without prejudice save as to cost, offering agreement on the basis that the court won't find out about it until the case has been decided, so that if it was reasonable, you can get a costs order in your favour. This applies not only to an agreement on the whole case but on distinct issues within a case, as sometimes a small issue can give rise to a huge amount of time and cost.
The level of detail that you suggest is not practical.
You certainly fought your corner.Love nor Money wrote: »5. My knowledge runs out here...
Ok...johnnyskeleton wrote: »How about, in a family law case:
1) contested discovery; 50:50
No idea.johnnyskeleton wrote: »2) a motion to attend ADR; 30:70
I'm not sure if you are taking the mick.johnnyskeleton wrote: »3) a case being adjourned due to a judge being sick; 70:30
Now I think you are taking the mick.johnnyskeleton wrote: »4) a Hague convention issue; 20:80
Seems high to me!johnnyskeleton wrote: »5) an appeal 50:50
There won't be too many solicitors who will go for the idea of percentages. Without empirical evidence (for instance, and at the risk of misquoting Mark de Blacam, I think that the percentage of people who successfully contest a drink driving case is 2%), this will be mostly arbitrary. One solicitor's 55% will be another man's 78%.johnnyskeleton wrote: »Such percentages being based on a solicitors general experience rather than an assessment of the specific case.0 -
Solicitors are not likely to give percentages for a number of reasons.
Firstly they aren't actuaries and such statistics would not have an empirical basis, they would essentially be plucked from the air.
Secondly, Its impossible to predict with any certainty how any matter is going to progress. Litigation in particular is utterly impossible and even with a apparently simple conveyance its not possible to really know what it will involve until the deeds and loan pack arrive. (although this will change in the future)
The system of giving an estimate and advice on fees followed by further estimates if necessary is fairest to both Solicitor and Client.0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 13636
The Mustard wrote: »There won't be too many solicitors who will go for the idea of percentages. Without empirical evidence (for instance, and at the risk of misquoting Mark de Blacam, I think that the percentage of people who successfully contest a drink driving case is 2%), this will be mostly arbitrary. One solicitor's 55% will be another man's 78%.
Well you wanted percentages, but I don't see any reason a solicitor can't set out the reasonably possible events that could occur which would increase the fee. That doesn't mean they have to mention everything (who knew the other side would challenge the constitutionality of divorce law etc), but with stuff like discovery motions, more complex pleadings, additional settlement meetings/adjourned hearings (for whatever reason) etc, a list of these things could be included in the agreement.
If an estimate of its liklihood has to be given how about:
Very unlikely, unlikely, even odds, likely, very likely. Such an estimate does not have to be universally true provided it is genuinely held.
Or, in the alternative, a solicitor could say:
€X for the first meeting. €Yper hour for phonecalls from client. €Zper letter responding to the other side. To brief counsel to draft and issue proceedings it is usually €X-Y depending on complexity. For motions it is usually €X, Y and Z. For the first day of hearing my fee is X and the barristers is Y, for each adjourned and subsequent hearing day it is Z. That would cover most things.
Or a flat fee could cover issuing, discovery, one motion for judgment and one day of hearing. If the hearing takes longer or there is a second motion then these additional items can be charged separately.
The whole "I'll do that case for €5k" business is unfair to clients and to lawyers.0 -
Thank you all for your very interesting discussion in responding to my original question. In particular, I have learned quite an amount from The Mustard and johnnyskeleton, thank you.
As a business person, I offer a service to my customers for which I have to provide an initial estimate. I do not, however, have the "luxury" (for want of a better word) of being able to charge my customers every time they, or I, call one another, meet up or write to one another, even if these transactions pertain to the actual work I am being employed to do. I suppose this is the difference between the legal sphere and the business world. Nor can I retrospectively bill my client for extra work undertaken, without first letting them know that this will be required. It seems, from my reading of the replies above, that solicitors have a more open-ended attitude towards the end result: achieving my divorce on the terms I would prefer.
The real problem appears to be what is regarded as acceptable for costing purposes, as far as I can see. If my customer delays things for me, I too have change my diary, incur extra costs via phone calls and correspondence, but it is not acceptable business practise for me to charge such things. My customer would (rightly) tell me to get stuffed. And therein, I feel, lies the difference between solicitors and all others. They believe they have the right to charge for such things as a phone call/letter/email, in order to do their job for their client. It is an entirely different way of looking at things.
If a builder prices a job, he/she cannot add on and keep a running tot of trips to the house, telephone calls, etc, and then revise the quote based on such things. ALL time is valuable, but I feel that solicitors have pushed this concept to another level, if what I am reading above is correct.
I would hope that I am not unreasonable and can see the logic of a job requiring re-estimation for certain reasons, but the invoice I have received for RETROSPECTIVE and UNEXPLAINED costs, coming to the VERY LARGE amount of €2,500 (plus V.A.T., which I cannot reclaim) smacks of a high-handedness that has left me reeling.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13636
As a business person, I offer a service to my customers for which I have to provide an initial estimate. I do not, however, have the "luxury" (for want of a better word) of being able to charge my customers every time they, or I, call one another, meet up or write to one another, even if these transactions pertain to the actual work I am being employed to do.
It's a matter for yourself the basis upon which you charge fees.I suppose this is the difference between the legal sphere and the business world.
Legal work is a business. Some businesses, including solicitors will offer free consultations etc. it's purely a matter for each business as to how they charge - that's capitalism baby!Nor can I retrospectively bill my client for extra work undertaken, without first letting them know that this will be required. It seems, from my reading of the replies above, that solicitors have a more open-ended attitude towards the end result: achieving my divorce on the terms I would prefer.
Nope. If a solicitor gives an estimate and the cost is higher they are not retrospectively billing or being open ended. They provided an estimate but it turned out to be lower than the mark.
I personally feel that a greater level of detail would help clients understand why a bill has gone up, but it is not required.If my customer delays things for me, I too have change my diary, incur extra costs via phone calls and correspondence, but it is not acceptable business practise for me to charge such things. My customer would (rightly) tell me to get stuffed.
If you are selling a product eg a fireplace, the customer has agreed to pay for that product. But with a service you are paying for the solicitors time. In reality, solicitors have to charge some clients per phonecall/letter because those clients can ring every day asking for an update. This takes up a lot of a solicitors time, and they are entitled to charge for that time.And therein, I feel, lies the difference between solicitors and all others. They believe they have the right to charge for such things as a phone call/letter/email, in order to do their job for their client.
Well you don't have to engage a solicitor. You can do all the correspondence, negotiations, talking in court etc yourself. You're not the only person who thinks that because solicitors sell talk rather than something you can touch that it somehow has less worth. If I want to speak to a solicitor about a legal problem over the phone, and they give me the answer, why shouldn't he be entitled to charge me?
By the way, the reasonableness or otherwise of your specific scenario is a matter between yourself and them. I am not offering any advice or comment on your complaint.0 -
Thank you all for your very interesting discussion in responding to my original question. In particular, I have learned quite an amount from The Mustard and johnnyskeleton, thank you.
As a business person, I offer a service to my customers for which I have to provide an initial estimate. I do not, however, have the "luxury" (for want of a better word) of being able to charge my customers every time they, or I, call one another, meet up or write to one another, even if these transactions pertain to the actual work I am being employed to do. I suppose this is the difference between the legal sphere and the business world. Nor can I retrospectively bill my client for extra work undertaken, without first letting them know that this will be required. It seems, from my reading of the replies above, that solicitors have a more open-ended attitude towards the end result: achieving my divorce on the terms I would prefer.
The real problem appears to be what is regarded as acceptable for costing purposes, as far as I can see. If my customer delays things for me, I too have change my diary, incur extra costs via phone calls and correspondence, but it is not acceptable business practise for me to charge such things. My customer would (rightly) tell me to get stuffed. And therein, I feel, lies the difference between solicitors and all others. They believe they have the right to charge for such things as a phone call/letter/email, in order to do their job for their client. It is an entirely different way of looking at things.
If a builder prices a job, he/she cannot add on and keep a running tot of trips to the house, telephone calls, etc, and then revise the quote based on such things. ALL time is valuable, but I feel that solicitors have pushed this concept to another level, if what I am reading above is correct.
I would hope that I am not unreasonable and can see the logic of a job requiring re-estimation for certain reasons, but the invoice I have received for RETROSPECTIVE and UNEXPLAINED costs, coming to the VERY LARGE amount of €2,500 (plus V.A.T., which I cannot reclaim) smacks of a high-handedness that has left me reeling.
Most business sell a product a solicitor sells his time. Some solicitors may agree to a fee based on getting some thing achieved example a divorce for say €5000. But most will not as family law is a mine field. I have seen divorces that took no more than a coupe of hours work, I have also seen divorces take hundreds of hours.
But I do in fact agree with you, I work in the area but not a solicitor. I have had rows with solicitors who do the work rack up bills in the tens of thousands and then wonder why the client is taken away in an ambulance. I also know solicitors who clearly set out the fees, who set limits that can't be exceeded without clear instruction. I know a solicitor who takes DD payments each month and has been in the happy position when work is completed to send the client a final bill and a cheque if they have overpaid. But the issue is a two way one and requires the client to set out what he or she is willing and able to pay.0 -
To johnnyskeleton
Indeed it is - however, if I were to charge my clients in the style of the Michael O'Leary/Ryanair business model, I believe I would soon be out of business. Just because you can, does not mean you should."It's a matter for yourself the basis upon which you charge fees. "
No ****, Sherlock! But this is precisely why I posed the question on this board, as I was/am trying to discover if there is a standard for the solicitor's fee structure and if I have been unfairly treated by my own solicitor."Legal work is a business. Some businesses, including solicitors will offer free consultations etc. it's purely a matter for each business as to how they charge - that's capitalism baby!"
Well actually my solicitor IS billing retrospectively. This is not a projected cost, but a bill for work done thus far, which has not been explained to me. Yes, I too feel that a greater level of detail would help, as it is not sufficient for me to be billed an additional and seriously large €2,500 plus VAT without some acceptable explanation. The fact that it is not required is entirely beside the point and far too convenient for racking up further unexplained costs.Nope. If a solicitor gives an estimate and the cost is higher they are not retrospectively billing or being open ended. They provided an estimate but it turned out to be lower than the mark.
I personally feel that a greater level of detail would help clients understand why a bill has gone up, but it is not required.
I am not arguing against the value a solicitor puts on their time for the work in hand. As a professional and a business person myself, I, too, provide a service that requires both my time, my expertise and a final outcome, but the practise of charging for client phone calls/emails should, is very nice thank you for the solicitor and I suppose if we could all get away with that, we'd be laughing. And if it comes down to it and these calls are what have raised the fee by €2,500, then there are some serious questions to be asked about the rates being charged here. However, I don't believe it is all that - but not having received any acceptable clarification, I do not know.If you are selling a product eg a fireplace, the customer has agreed to pay for that product. But with a service you are paying for the solicitors time. In reality, solicitors have to charge some clients per phonecall/letter because those clients can ring every day asking for an update. This takes up a lot of a solicitors time, and they are entitled to charge for that time.
This is an arrogant response and you are making assumptions about my thinking that are neither warranted nor correct.Well you don't have to engage a solicitor. You can do all the correspondence, negotiations, talking in court etc yourself. You're not the only person who thinks that because solicitors sell talk rather than something you can touch that it somehow has less worth. If I want to speak to a solicitor about a legal problem over the phone, and they give me the answer, why shouldn't he be entitled to charge me?0 -
Regrettably, what I'm taking from this is that there is an unwillingness on the part of the legal profession to acknowledge that anything is wrong. I'm not saying that lawyers should get paid less, and I certainly don't buy into the 'sheltered profession' bull that the competition authority or the M for J go on about.
But something is wrong. There is very poor visibility on costs, and I can empathise with Atzee on this.
Lawyering (especially litigation) is inherently time-consuming and difficult. There are indeed uncertainties. But it's not good enough anymore to just accept that that's the way it is.
There is an important distinction between on the one hand saying, 'we are not overpaid, but we need to work out a clearer way of communicating with clients just why it is that fees can be as high as they are' (i.e. explaiing the uncertainties and the unseen work) and, on the other, saying, 'everything's fine, they just don't understand'.
The latter attitude does enormous harm to the profession because it invites people less well able to do it - politicians - to introduce "reform". And let me be clear about this, from what I know about it (mainly second hand) it will achieve nothing woirthwhile.0 -
Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,715 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 17355
Love nor Money wrote: »Regrettably, what I'm taking from this is that there is an unwillingness on the part of the legal profession to acknowledge that anything is wrong. I'm not saying that lawyers should get paid less, and I certainly don't buy into the 'sheltered profession' bull that the competition authority or the M for J go on about.
But something is wrong. There is very poor visibility on costs, and I can empathise with Atzee on this.
Lawyering (especially litigation) is inherently time-consuming and difficult. There are indeed uncertainties. But it's not good enough anymore to just accept that that's the way it is.
There is an important distinction between on the one hand saying, 'we are not overpaid, but we need to work out a clearer way of communicating with clients just why it is that fees can be as high as they are' (i.e. explaiing the uncertainties and the unseen work) and, on the other, saying, 'everything's fine, they just don't understand'.
The latter attitude does enormous harm to the profession because it invites people less well able to do it - politicians - to introduce "reform". And let me be clear about this, from what I know about it (mainly second hand) it will achieve nothing woirthwhile.
I agree with almost everything you have said here.
There is definitely a need for more transparency in terms of the things that have given rise to costs. It crops up again and again that solicitors are accused of overcharging because their bill is higher than anticipated.
Barristers' fees are usually fairly straightforward, although they vary to a great degree depending on who is briefed (pesky capitalism again). As mentioned above, solicitors do a lot of unseen work on top of work that will not be provided for by an order for costs (i.e., upon successfully litigating a claim).
Unfortunately, the itemisation of billing on a pro rata basis is not a perfect model either and will, in some cases, substantially increase the final bills.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13636
Indeed it is - however, if I were to charge my clients in the style of the Michael O'Leary/Ryanair business model, I believe I would soon be out of business. Just because you can, does not mean you should.
A solicitor who unfairly charges their clients will develop a reputation for doing so, as will a solicitor who charges very fairly. But even a company that has a general reputation for fair dealing (Aer Lingus, for example) will occasionally have a misunderstanding or miscommunication with their clients.No ****, Sherlock! But this is precisely why I posed the question on this board, as I was/am trying to discover if there is a standard for the solicitor's fee structure and if I have been unfairly treated by my own solicitor.
No, there is no standard fee structure, but there is, as has been pointed out to you by ResearchWill, a system whereby the fees actually charged can be assessed as reasonable or not. It is up to you to go down that route or not.I am not arguing against the value a solicitor puts on their time for the work in hand. As a professional and a business person myself, I, too, provide a service that requires both my time, my expertise and a final outcome, but the practise of charging for client phone calls/emails should, is very nice thank you for the solicitor and I suppose if we could all get away with that, we'd be laughing.
You are contradicting yourself here - you say that a solicitor should be paid for their time, just not the time they spend on the phone? Maybe I can pay a taxi for the last 5 miles of my journey, but not for the first 5 miles. Sure if Mr. Taximan could get away with charging me for all of the time he spends giving me a lift, we'd be laughing (and that's not even to mention taxi drivers charging for call-outs, return journeys on long trips etc).This is an arrogant response and you are making assumptions about my thinking that are neither warranted nor correct.
Explain to me how it is not correct? You seem to take issue with the fact that solicitors can charge for their time, even if this time is spent on the phone to a client keeping them updated as to their case.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13636
Love nor Money wrote: »Regrettably, what I'm taking from this is that there is an unwillingness on the part of the legal profession to acknowledge that anything is wrong.
Quite the contrary, most posters have suggested that there is room for improvement in the explanation of fees, and no one has suggested that everything is fine. At worst, it was suggested that the level of detail desired by some people is very difficult to predict.But something is wrong. There is very poor visibility on costs, and I can empathise with Atzee on this.
Lawyering (especially litigation) is inherently time-consuming and difficult. There are indeed uncertainties. But it's not good enough anymore to just accept that that's the way it is.
No one is saying that people should just accept that that is the way it is. In reality, a client can't go into a solicitor's office, pay little attention to what the solicitor says about the basis for charging their fees, not ask any questions as to the specifics of the fees, and then complain that they weren't given enough information. By contrast, any person who goes in to a solicitor and asks them exactly what the fees will cover etc will usually be given very detailed information. If they are not, they can shop around.
The problem isn't the solicitors, and it is unfair to expect a person selling a product to undercut themselves at every turn. Instead, people need to be savvy about how they go about their business. The rules of caveat emptor and managing your own financial affairs are things of the past - now consumers want to be treated like babies - having no input into the contract at the start, but being able to complain when the eaten bread is long forgotten.There is an important distinction between on the one hand saying, 'we are not overpaid, but we need to work out a clearer way of communicating with clients just why it is that fees can be as high as they are' (i.e. explaiing the uncertainties and the unseen work) and, on the other, saying, 'everything's fine, they just don't understand'.
But you have to remember as well that some people wilfully refuse to even try to understand. If such people buy a rubbish second hand car we say they should have taken greater care in the purchase, if they buy a house with title problems we say they should have engaged a solicitor (or sue their solicitor if the solicitor did a negligent job). But yet with lawyers it has to be explain every possible eventuality and even then people complain?The latter attitude does enormous harm to the profession because it invites people less well able to do it - politicians - to introduce "reform". And let me be clear about this, from what I know about it (mainly second hand) it will achieve nothing woirthwhile.
I agree. Part of the reason for the lack of transparency in fees is, counter-intuitively, caused by attempts to regulate and reform matters. Far better, in my view, to educate people to shop around, rather than impose artificial burdens on solicitors. The former enlightens people enough to make informed choices, the latter makes them feel like they have no personal responsibility.
A good analogy is the amount of people who are claiming that the banks missold them mortgage that were too high. But it was not the banks job to nanny them, nor should it be.0 -
Advertisement
-
Certain County Registrars have sets of scale costs, but these are neither publicly accessible nor very comprehensive.
It would clarify matters a good deal for lawyers, clients and insurance companies, if there were comprehensive, publicly accessible standard scales of costs, showing the amounts at which various matters would be likely to tax in respect of each court.
It might be interesting to see whether this would make sense, whether on a statutory basis or otherwise.
I realise that it would not deal with all of the matters raised here.0
Advertisement