# Solicitor fee but charge struck out



## apple1 (24 Oct 2007)

Hi, I had a court appearance recently for a minor motoring offence & the charge was struck out on the day.  My solicitor never even had to utter a word in court but still charged me €300!!  Is he entitled to do this?  To the best of my knowledge, all he did prior to the court appearance was obtain a copy of the charge sheet?  He requested the fee before the court appearance and I obliged naturally but do other posters feel this fee is merited or do I have recourse to request a (partial) refund?  Thanks.


----------



## ubiquitous (24 Oct 2007)

apple1 said:


> He requested the fee before the court appearance.



I can see why!


----------



## ClubMan (24 Oct 2007)

Apart from getting the charge sheet did he advise you in any way or discuss matters with you? Did you ask him what specifically the €300 charge was for?


----------



## Caveat (24 Oct 2007)

apple1 said:


> Hi, I had a court appearance recently for a minor motoring offence & the charge was struck out on the day. My solicitor never even had to utter a word in court but still charged me €300!! Is he entitled to do this? To the best of my knowledge, all he did prior to the court appearance was obtain a copy of the charge sheet? He requested the fee before the court appearance and I obliged naturally but do other posters feel this fee is merited or do I have recourse to request a (partial) refund? Thanks.


 

But I suppose he would still need to be paid for his time - travelling there/back, waiting around in court a bit maybe?  Tradesmen would charge a call out fee for example even if they didn't have to do anything.


----------



## Bronte (24 Oct 2007)

You didn't have to use a solicitor, then there would have been no fee.  You also had the option when he said his fee was 300 of not using him.   I'd be happy the charge was struck out if I was in your shoes.


----------



## ClubMan (24 Oct 2007)

I presume from the original post that he requested the fee before the abortive court appearance but not before carrying out any work in the first place.


----------



## mf1 (24 Oct 2007)

Look, if you want a solicitor to appear for you in Court, you pay. End of story. Solicitor attended Court on your behalf ready to meet the charges, having seen the summons and worked out what to say, if the case  had to be met. The charge was struck out - the solicitor was still there. 

If you go to the Doctor with a pain in your foot and he tells you your shoe is too tight, do you think you should not have to pay the consultation fee?

mf


----------



## Megan (24 Oct 2007)

Did you have a consultation with the solicitor in his office when you engaged him to represent you in court? If so that would have to be paid for as well as him attending the court.


----------



## apple1 (24 Oct 2007)

Appears the solicitor has lots of support on Askaboutmoney!  Here's the course of events for reference....I placed a call to his office asking for representation which was fielded by his secretary (30 seconds).  At her request, I fax through a copy of the charge sheet.  Some time later, he calls me back to briefly (5 minutes) discuss the incident. Next time we meet is 1 minute before court convenes (1 minute conversation), 10 seconds of which is usurped by him asking for a €300 fee (paid in cash & no receipt).  Later during the course of proceedings, the court clerk reads the charge to which a Garda Inspector replies, charge struck out.  Solicitor doesn't even need to stand or utter a word.  I leave court, he shakes my hand & wishes my good luck (5 seconds).
If he had to argue my case & then its struck out, I'd think ok, €300, not bad, but €300 for a 5 minutes phonecall & another 1.5 minutes on courtesies???  As far travelling to meet me, my case was about 50th on the list, by which time he had represented at a minimum 20 other clients, so I don't accept that he travelled just to represent me.  

To Bronte: I agree, his fee would have been value had he had a role in the strike out.
To MF1: Wrt your doctor example, if he had a part in easing my pain, I'd have no issue paying (albeit feeling stupid that I didn't recognise that the only problem was a tight shoe!)
My original question stands - do posters think this represents good value or is it another example of the rip-off culture that exists among many of the professions in this country?


----------



## ubiquitous (24 Oct 2007)

apple1 said:


> do posters think this represents good value or is it another example of the rip-off culture that exists among many of the professions in this country?



No I don't think it represents particularly good value, but you can't really blame "rip-off culture" for the fact that you didn't shop around and/or negotiate an indicative price beforehand. You can only blame yourself for this.


----------



## Towger (24 Oct 2007)

What the going rate at the moment? About €150 per hour I think. It probably took 2 or 3 hours of his/her time in total, so €300 is not bad.

Towger


----------



## Caveat (24 Oct 2007)

apple1 said:


> Appears the solicitor has lots of support on Askaboutmoney! Here's the course of events for reference....I placed a call to his office asking for representation which was fielded by his secretary (30 seconds). At her request, I fax through a copy of the charge sheet. Some time later, he calls me back to briefly (5 minutes) discuss the incident. Next time we meet is 1 minute before court convenes (1 minute conversation), 10 seconds of which is usurped by him asking for a €300 fee (paid in cash & no receipt). Later during the course of proceedings, the court clerk reads the charge to which a Garda Inspector replies, charge struck out. Solicitor doesn't even need to stand or utter a word. I leave court, he shakes my hand & wishes my good luck (5 seconds).
> If he had to argue my case & then its struck out, I'd think ok, €300, not bad, but €300 for a 5 minutes phonecall & another 1.5 minutes on courtesies??? As far travelling to meet me, my case was about 50th on the list, by which time he had represented at a minimum 20 other clients, so I don't accept that he travelled just to represent me.
> 
> To Bronte: I agree, his fee would have been value had he had a role in the strike out.
> ...


 
I have to admit that the way you have presented it, it doesn't sound like good value.

But it doesn't matter that the solicitor wasn't making a special trip just for you - the solicitor still had to 'travel' and be absent from his office.  If any professionals (engineers, architects etc) have to attend to anything  "on site", it will automatically be expensive. Doesn't matter if they actually do very little.  Doubt that any professional would offer a reduction or other consideration as they "had to be there anyway"

The other thing is that personally, if I was engaging the service of a solicitor I would determine in advance what any likely costs would be in a number of scenarios. (Not that you want to hear that at this stage)


----------



## efm (24 Oct 2007)

apple1 said:


> I fax through a copy of the charge sheet. Some time later, he calls me back to briefly (5 minutes) discuss the incident.


 
Do you expect a qualified professional to review, discuss and make himself available for nothing? I think 300 euro was a fair price.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (24 Oct 2007)

Hi apple 

At what stage did you agree a fee of €300 or did you engage him without discussing the fee? 

I have engaged solicitors to collecgt debts. They have a charge depending on what stage it gets to. They do very well when clients just pay up on receipt of the letter from the solicitor. The solicitors lose out when they have to spend a lot of time on a case. 

I imagine that this was easy money for the solicitor, but he would have had to work a lot harder if the case was postponed and there were other issues. 

Brendan


----------



## ClubMan (24 Oct 2007)

apple1 said:


> Appears the solicitor has lots of support on Askaboutmoney!


Not necessarily - some people are just trying to tease out the details after your initial sketchy post.


> I agree, his fee would have been value had he had a role in the strike out.


Is there a possibility that simple by appearing on your behalf this helped secure the strike out or would that necessarily have happened anyway?


----------



## mf1 (24 Oct 2007)

We call it the Scale of Client Gratitude. You will generally find it easier to be paid just before Court. At that stage, client is nervous, client wants reassurance of Solicitor there, client happy to hide behind Solicitor, client willing to pay fee. After the event, whichever way it goes, client has a rethink. You know what, I could have done that, he did nothing, I had to do everything  myself, he was rubbish, what a rip off, I want my money back. 

If I make myself available to a client to represent them in Court, they should pay me. If they do not want me there, they do not have to engage me,and then they don't have to pay me. 

I would have no shortage of work if I was willing to work for free. 

mf


----------



## MOB (24 Oct 2007)

Based on what was outlined by the original poster, there are two likely possiblities:

1.  Solicitor got lucky and made relatively easy money - he still had to do some work for it.   

2.  It is possible that the strike out was in fact as a result of the solicitor's input.  If there was a defect of some sort in the proceedings, it would not be unusual for a solicitor to speak beforehand with the prosecuting garda - a solicitor who is in the District Court all the time (as this one clearly is) would not particularly want to ambush the prosecution and would prefer to give them the opportunity to withdraw a summons without being embarrassed in front of the judge.  If this is what actually happened, then the solicitor was clearly worth every cent.

Either way, I don't think the OP can complain.


----------



## apple1 (24 Oct 2007)

Clubman...I don't think he had any influence on the strike out.  In fact he told me in the 1 minute prior to court convening to prepare myself for a small fine & a dismissal.  The strike out caught him unaware also.

Brendan...I agree with your sentiments...if he had to work harder, 300 may have been good value.  What irks me was that my case quite literally usurped 5-10 minutes of his time.  
To answer efm, I don't expect anyone, professional or otherwise to offer their service for little/no compensation, but I do expect that any charge will be commensurate with either the time expended or the result/outcome of their efforts.


----------



## helan72 (24 Oct 2007)

€300 fee (paid in cash & no receipt). 

i agree that a professional has to be paid for time spent so my only query is regarding the above which i find strange - did he ask for cash? did you ask for a receipt / invoice? if not I would def ask for one now


----------



## ubiquitous (24 Oct 2007)

helan72 said:


> €300 fee (paid in cash & no receipt).
> 
> i agree that a professional has to be paid for time spent so my only query is regarding the above which i find strange - did he ask for cash? did you ask for a receipt / invoice? if not I would def ask for one now



As the case, and presumably the fact of his presence in the courtroom defending the OP, is on the public record, it beggars belief that this income would not be recorded & declared in the solicitor's own accounts - though these days you never know...


----------



## ClubMan (24 Oct 2007)

apple1 said:


> Clubman...I don't think he had any influence on the strike out.  In fact he told me in the 1 minute prior to court convening to prepare myself for a small fine & a dismissal.  The strike out caught him unaware also.
> 
> Brendan...I agree with your sentiments...if he had to work harder, 300 may have been good value.  What irks me was that my case quite literally usurped 5-10 minutes of his time.
> To answer efm, I don't expect anyone, professional or otherwise to offer their service for little/no compensation, but I do expect that any charge will be commensurate with either the time expended or the result/outcome of their efforts.


Just curious - when you paid the fee did you voice any reservation about the amount or were you happy to pay it based on your anticipation or receiving sole level of service during the court sitting the need for which never arose? If so what level of involvement in court would have justified the fee in your opinion?


----------



## apple1 (24 Oct 2007)

Clubman...when I paid the fee, I expected that that at a minimum, my solicior was going to have to trot out the usual, this is his first offence, no previous convictions etc., etc.  Not being a courtroom regular, I thought it prudent to have a solicitor, if for nothing more than appearance and to have him utter the usual line(s).  Given that there was zero required of him in court, I would have imagined €150 was more than adequate??  Maybe others think not.  That's why I posted the question here - to solicit opinion as to whether the majority thought it a fair price.


----------



## Stifster (24 Oct 2007)

I'm just back from Court. It took up the whole morning and while we were 24th in the list and the case itself only took about 5 minutes that was facilitated by the fact i had spoken to the prosecution in advance and had agreed a plea in return for two charges being struck out. The client faced a maximum fine of almost €4,000 but ended up being ordered to pay €630. 

A court attendance fee of €300 is cheap enough (€53 is VAT). However long the actual case itself takes the solicitor is gone from the office for a half or full day depending. Very often it is not until you get there or until the case is called that the solicitor finds out if it is going ahead.

At least he told you in advance, for first time clients in cirmcumstances like yours I would ask for the money to be paid on the day (not in advance of the hearing date but before going into court). You engaged him to be in court for you that is the bottom line. If you went out for dinner and only ate half your main course they wouldn't give you the dish for half price.


----------



## ClubMan (24 Oct 2007)

apple1 said:


> Clubman...when I paid the fee, I expected that that at a minimum, my solicior was going to have to trot out the usual, this is his first offence, no previous convictions etc., etc.  Not being a courtroom regular, I thought it prudent to have a solicitor, if for nothing more than appearance and to have him utter the usual line(s).  Given that there was zero required of him in court, I would have imagined €150 was more than adequate??  Maybe others think not.  That's why I posted the question here - to solicit opinion as to whether the majority thought it a fair price.


Is this not a bit like insurance though? I pay €300 for my annual house insurance because I consider it a fair price given what it could potentially be worth to me - but I don't claim that it's a rip-off just because my house does not actually burn down and so I don't get to claim €300K or whatever? You paid what you initially presumably considered a fair price to the solicitor for what he was potentially going to do for you. Does the fact that he didn't need to do this in the end necessarily change matters substantially? Have you written to the solicitor voicing your reservations about how much you were charged?


----------



## Bronte (24 Oct 2007)

OP - So you agree that his fee should have been 150 Euro.  Why didn't you negotiate this amount in advance then?  It seems to me you thought the 300 was good value before the court case and not afterwards.  You were paying for his expertise, in your case he actually didn't need to use it but if the case had gone ahead without him you might be thinking 300 was very little especially if you'd been hit with a large fine/penalty points etc. 

Ubiquitous, very funny.  Do you think revenue are down in court following cases all day.  In any case how on earth would they know what fee was paid, if any.


----------



## apple1 (24 Oct 2007)

I guess its a matter of opinion Clubman.  For the service I received & the level of involvement of the person who acted on my behalf, I thought and still think the fee to be expensive.  I do welcome the opinions of others though.  As to the previous poster, I would have had no issue had the same process materialised in my case, i.e. you were instrumental in securing a better outcome for your client.  In my case, the solicitor had no hand nor part in the outcome.  It would appear though that there is a significant number who believe the fee was fair..............so be it.


----------



## ClubMan (24 Oct 2007)

apple1 said:


> It would appear though that there is a significant number who believe the fee was fair..............so be it.


But if you don't believe so then surely you should be taking it up with the solicitor? Have you?


----------



## ubiquitous (24 Oct 2007)

apple1 said:


> expensive.  ... fair..............



Do bear in mind that it is possible for a price to be both expensive and fair.



Bronte said:


> Ubiquitous, very funny.  Do you think revenue are down in court following cases all day.  In any case how on earth would they know what fee was paid, if any.



No, but in the event of a Revenue Audit of a solicitor or other professional, I would expect that the Revenue would use a range of audit tests to verify the accuracy or otherwise of the fee income, including perhaps a reconciliation of the professional's fee records and client list against publicly available information such as court documents. I would also expect any professional worth their salt to have a basic awareness of this possibility in assessing whether or not they should be tax-compliant in respect of fee income.


----------



## Stifster (24 Oct 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> No, but in the event of a Revenue Audit of a solicitor or other professional, I would expect that the Revenue would use a range of audit tests to verify the accuracy or otherwise of the fee income, including perhaps a reconciliation of the professional's fee records and client list against publicly available information such as court documents.


 
Having never been in a firm which was audited by the Revenue i don't know exactly what they do but would assume that they go through each paper file to reconcile it with the client account.

Now if the file only has a faxed copy of the summons it is possible that the solicitor spoke to the client on the phone and that was that.

Furtehrmore there is nothing on the court records to show that the OP was represented (unless he applied for legal aid) in such cases. Therefore nothing for the Revenue to start with.


----------



## apple1 (24 Oct 2007)

Clubman...I haven't spoke to the solicitor about the fee.  That was the second part of my original post....did others think there was any recourse to request a refund.  Clearly the majority think not!

Bronte...I didn't negotiate ahead of time, as I'd little to no idea what to expect on the day, how much time was required on his part, whether there would be an adjournement etc., etc.  On reflection and having experience now of the process, I'd be a little wiser next time (not that I intend being an ever-present!).  I don't think its unusual to think that an item (good/service) may be good value before you procure it, but on receiving the good/service, consider it to be bad value.  If I get a meal in a restaurant, irrespective of whether or not my expectation is high of the product, if it transpires that the meal is of poor quality, then I certainly wouldn't be paying list price.


----------



## ubiquitous (24 Oct 2007)

Stifster said:


> Furtehrmore there is nothing on the court records to show that the OP was represented (unless he applied for legal aid) in such cases. Therefore nothing for the Revenue to start with.



Thanks for clarifying that.



Stifster said:


> Having never been in a firm which was audited by the Revenue i don't know exactly what they do but would assume that they go through each paper file to reconcile it with the client account.
> 
> Now if the file only has a faxed copy of the summons it is possible that the solicitor spoke to the client on the phone and that was that.



But would there not be an expectation that there should be a fee invoice & receipt to correspond to each file - and a record somewhere on the file of the fact that the client was represented in court on the day?


----------



## ClubMan (24 Oct 2007)

apple1 said:


> Clubman...I haven't spoke to the solicitor about the fee.  That was the second part of my original post....did others think there was any recourse to request a refund.  Clearly the majority think not!


Whatever others think there is nothing stopping you from voicing your concerns to your solicitor and asking for a partial refund. Chances are you probably won't get it but without asking you never know. 


> If I get a meal in a restaurant, irrespective of whether or not my expectation is high of the product, if it transpires that the meal is of poor quality, then I certainly wouldn't be paying list price.


I thought that my insurance analogy was much more apposite. Do you disagree with the general thrust of my analysis on that front?


----------



## Stifster (24 Oct 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> But would there not be an expectation that there should be a fee invoice & receipt to correspond to each file - and a record somewhere on the file of the fact that the client was represented in court on the day?


 
I have a lot of files that got opened after an initial consultation or telephone call that would not have generated a fee note. Some may even have copy summonses on them. In fact one I advsied a client on last week has. It is part and parcel of most practices. 

There is no obligation to keep a note of having attended at court (obviously there is an obligation to declare the earnings but that is another issue) and if nothing happened then there was nothing to note....
Everyone has different ways of doing their housekeeping.

my meal analogy didn't work as it was supposed to have been a lovely dish but more food than was needed! However what is more relevant is the fact that he was out of the office for a period of time when he could have been billing hours on other matters. 

Unfortunately this does appear to have been a fee for cash and is low in the first place.


----------



## ubiquitous (24 Oct 2007)

Stifster said:


> There is no obligation to keep a note of having attended at court.



Yes, but I would have thought that such notes would be an essential element of practice housekeeping, and a basic protection for the practice in the event of a future dispute, complaint to the Law Society or Revenue Audit?


----------



## z103 (24 Oct 2007)

The opinions the OP are getting here might be a tad biased. I'm sure many of the respondants are solicitors or other fee earning professionals such as accountants etc, that would have €300 down the back of their expensive couch.

In my opinion, the problem stems from the fact that maybe the OP didn't know what they'd be getting for their €300. 

There's also the element of fear. Pay up or else.


----------



## Stifster (24 Oct 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> Yes, but I would have thought that such notes would be an essential element of practice housekeeping, and a basic protection for the practice in the event of a future dispute, complaint to the Law Society or Revenue Audit?


 
to quote myself



> Everyone has different ways of doing their housekeeping.


 
Good practice management and common sense, yes. Legal obligation, no.


----------



## apple1 (24 Oct 2007)

Thanks Leghorn......for a moment there, I felt like a sheep among wolves!!  While I may disagree with many of those posting, I do value & appreciate the opinions - the beauty of this site I suppose.


----------



## ubiquitous (24 Oct 2007)

leghorn said:


> The opinions the OP are getting here might be a tad biased. I'm sure many of the respondants are solicitors or other fee earning professionals such as accountants etc, that would have €300 down the back of their expensive couch.



So what? I am an accountant and that didn't stop me from saying "I don't think it represents particularly good value".


----------



## ClubMan (24 Oct 2007)

leghorn said:


> The opinions the OP are getting here might be a tad biased. I'm sure many of the respondants are solicitors or other fee earning professionals such as accountants etc, that would have €300 down the back of their expensive couch.


Well I'm not in case you were concerned...


----------



## efm (24 Oct 2007)

leghorn said:


> The opinions the OP are getting here might be a tad biased. I'm sure many of the respondants are solicitors or other fee earning professionals such as accountants etc, that would have €300 down the back of their expensive couch.


 
That is an outrageous generalisation - I can assure you I am neither a solicitor nor other fee earning professional and my Dunnes Stores couch never has more than 3 cent in it.

I believe that Clubman's analogy of insurance is the best - you paid for him to look at the case, have a defence ready, attend court away from his office and be prepared to speak in your defence - you were both just lucky it got struck out.


----------



## MOB (24 Oct 2007)

"....In my case, the solicitor had no hand nor part in the outcome."

Sorry to be repeating myself, but you cannot know this for sure, unless the solicitor actually told you.   It is perfectly normal for dialogue to take place between defending licitor and prosecutor beforehand: if there was a defect in the summons, it could easily be the case that the withdrawal was as a result of the solicitor's prior intervention.


----------



## apple1 (24 Oct 2007)

MOB, I'm 100% sure his intervention had nothing to do with the strike out.  Quite literally 10 seconds before proceedings began, he told me to prepare for a fine.  I do feel lucky that the charges were struck out but it would appear this was in no way due to the solicitor.  All i asked was did others think that €300 was merited for his being prepared to answer the charge on my behalf.  I'd love a job where I was paid for preparing to do something but then have to do little or nothing.  

MF1....I haven't stated anywhere that I shouldn't have had to pay him.  On the contrary, I have no issue in paying him.  At the time I engaged him, I fully expected to pay a fee & like anyone else I pay for a product/service, after the fact I assess whether it was good value or not.  I cannot make that assessment prior to being in receipt of the product or service.  Given this was my first time engaging a solicitor, I had no idea what to expect in terms of going rate or fee & as you correctly state, ahead of a court appearance, a defendant typically won't question his solicitors request for payment.  In hindsight though, I stand by my original comment - I don't think €300 was good value for the time he had to invest in my case.  In the final analysis, he didn't have to make any representation on my behalf.  You too of course are entitled to your opinion.


----------



## ubiquitous (24 Oct 2007)

apple1 said:


> Quite literally 10 seconds before proceedings began, he told me to prepare for a fine.



Surely he was wise to do so if only for the sake of prudence?

If he had told you that you were going to get off, and you ended up with a fine, would you have been happy?


----------



## Stifster (24 Oct 2007)

apple1 said:


> I haven't stated anywhere that I shouldn't have had to pay him. On the contrary, I have no issue in paying him. At the time I engaged him, I fully expected to pay a fee & like anyone else I pay for a product/service, after the fact I assess whether it was good value or not. I cannot make that assessment prior to being in receipt of the product or service. Given this was my first time engaging a solicitor, I had no idea what to expect in terms of going rate or fee & as you correctly state, ahead of a court appearance, a defendant typically won't question his solicitors request for payment. In hindsight though, I stand by my original comment - I don't think €300 was good value for the time he had to invest in my case. In the final analysis, he didn't have to make any representation on my behalf. You too of course are entitled to your opinion.


 
I think you need to take into consideration the fact that he was out of the office and in court on your behalf. Spurning the opportunity to progress another case while waiting for yours to come up. That time cannot be charged to anyone else but you. The fact that the case was struck out is ultimately incidental (unless of course he knew in advance). I will tell people that i think they can deal with particular offenses themselves if they like, but my fee is X for turning up. If their case is struck out or takes an hour (in court) it is all the same.


----------



## ClubMan (24 Oct 2007)

apple1 said:


> MF1....I haven't stated anywhere that I shouldn't have had to pay him.  On the contrary, I have no issue in paying him.


Insinuating that he is overcharging for the work done or even ripping you off surely gives the lie to your claim that you have no issue with paying him?!


----------



## apple1 (24 Oct 2007)

Clubman....I think perhaps you're misinterpreting what I'm saying.  Its not the paying that I had issue with, merely the amount.  In any event, this particular discussion has in my opinion, ran its course.  Maybe I'll engage Stifster next time!  Bon nuit.


----------



## Lauren86 (5 Jan 2008)

Bear in mind that your solicitor may have been preparing you for a fine (though expecting  the 'strike out'), just to manage your expectations.  It might be interesting for you to compare Eircom call out charges with the cost of legal assistance at a time of need.  300 Euro got your solicitor to represent you (250ish ex vat).  If you call Eircom out to repair a phone fault such as: "Visit due to faulty non-eircom equipment during normal hours.", you will be billed: "230.00 visit charge. Inspection of non-eircom Customer Premises Equipment (CPE). Fault is localised into third party. No work done.+ 50.00 per half hour threafter".  Ex vat, making a grand total of E278.30 and no work is done so you will still have to pay the next person to come along and fix it.  Cost, value and price are not the same thing.  Your solicitor gave you a bargain.  Lauren


----------



## ramble (6 Jan 2008)

Going back to the "cash" aspect, when revenue do an audit they do not just look at the paper and accounts available in a particular business premises.  The inspector will be familiar with the particular business type and normal business practices, they will look at all sorts of things like how many phone calls are made/received, the level of staffing and the amount of paper used to determine the volume of business transacted and then check to see that this corresponds with declared figures (in pubs the drinks going over the bar on a Saturday night could be counted).  Most people pay cash for amounts under €500 and a solicitor in the habit of doing court work won't just do road traffic but also do the full range of criminal work and would look for cash payment in advance (cash can't bounce and a client who gets a big fine may not be keen on paying the solicitor after the event).  On the cost of the  work it seems ok to me, like lauren has pointed out very few business go anywhere for less.


----------

