The day's work of itemising maybe two years of work costs money and yes, the client pays for this too.
There are lots of 'quick and dirty' ways of making a reasonable fee estimate that you can safely stand over.If it's not already itemised how are they arriving at the final figure to bill the client?
I dunno. Doesn’t sound right.Certainly that is one possibility. More likely, in my experience, the solicitor has finished up a troublesome file and is under pressure to handle other things, and has picked a round sum figure that the solicitor can comfortably stand over, just to be able to close the file.
The day's work of itemising maybe two years of work costs money and yes, the client pays for this too.
When I offer a short-form bill in this manner, as I sometimes do, I make it clear that I am quite sure that this represents a discounted fee, but that if the client is happy to pay it I am happy to take it. The alternative (always offered) is a fully itemised bill with the warning that it will almost certainly be for a higher figure.
My experience, is that when any supplier gives a bill for a nice round amount like 10k, with no back up or basis as to what lies behind it, then they have largely pulled a figure out of the air. This would especially be the case for solicitors where they bill not just for the man hours but for everything from photocopying to sending a letter and everything in between. There may be some basis for the €10k in their head and they may, as another poster has said, just thrown a figure out to try and make an issue go away.
What was the gist of their response to your request?I was charged €10000 and the solicitor was offended that I asked for an itemised bill.
I dunno. Doesn’t sound right.
The process I have described is not at all the same as what you have taken from my comments......you let it be known that compliance with these pesky obligations is going to cost the client more....
We don't know whether that is the case.That is not the same thing at all as just presenting a figure and saying " it's this" (which is what seems to have happened to OP)
That’s not really the point. Compliance is a requirement on many businesses. It’s non-negotiable - an overhead that should be priced into the cost of doing business.When you add a regulatory or compliance burden to any process, you increase the cost. People don't need to be told this.
Nope. Not at all. Compliance is non negotiable. The form that this compliance may take is negotiable -and either way it must be documented. It is perfectly permissible to make an agreement as to the total costs that will be paid and to document that agreement. To quote the legislation:That’s not really the point. Compliance is a requirement on many businesses. It’s non-negotiable - an overhead that should be priced into the cost of doing business.
There’s a certain irony that members of the legal community feel so comfortable circumventing their obligations. It seems to be the professional equivalent of “doing a job for cash”.
Well that effectively makes a nonsense of the supposedly “legal” requirement to provide a detailed bill of costs.Nope. Not at all. Compliance is non negotiable. The form that this compliance may take is negotiable -and either way it must be documented. It is perfectly permissible to make an agreement as to the total costs that will be paid and to document that agreement. To quote the legislation:
(6) Where an agreement referred to in subsection (5) concerns all of the legal costs that are payable by the client to the legal practitioner for legal services provided in relation to the matter concerned, an invoice prepared by the legal practitioner containing a summary of the costs and outlays pursuant to the agreement, together with a copy of the agreement, shall constitute a bill of costs of the purposes of this section.
How do you make any sort of money at all…...
"Let's do some back of envelope calculations here. .... So...you're into me for €10k for sure. If we drill down it's going to get to €12k or more, but I'm gonna share the pain with you on this one. If you are happy to pay the €10k, I'm happy to settle at that ".
I don't think that's a fair characterisation of the process I have described. If you have a client who knows and trusts that you are not overcharging, and if you are genuinely giving a discount, what on earth is wrong with agreeing to settle things on that basis? Or you may have a reasonably sophisticated client who has a very good understanding of the legal process and he or she may set a budget for steps 1-6 inclusive ( this is in fact what many insurance companies do with their solicitors). That client does not care if Discovery or Defence or Counterclaim takes you 3 hours or 13 hours to prepare. They will agree to pay €X per task.Well that effectively makes a nonsense of the supposedly “legal” requirement to provide a detailed bill of costs.
The customer’s is effectively given a choice - pay x amount or, if you insist on a bill of costs which is your legal entitlement, pay x plus y.
You’ve got to love it.
Ideally by balancing out "everyone shares the pain" files with "everyone gets a bit of jam" files. The practice of law has more variability than many other lines of business. Balance is important.How do you make any sort of money at all…
Well that effectively makes a nonsense of the supposedly “legal” requirement to provide a detailed bill of costs.
The customer’s is effectively given a choice - pay x amount or, if you insist on a bill of costs which is your legal entitlement, pay x plus y.
You’ve got to love it.
That depends.Afterwards, he informed me that the procedure had been a success and sent me on a bill for a few grand.
Strangely, I didn't feel the need to ask him for an itemised bill. Presumably you would have?
The governing legislation is a bit of a fig leaf.I don't think that's a fair characterisation of the process I have described. If you have a client who knows and trusts that you are not overcharging, and if you are genuinely giving a discount, what on earth is wrong with agreeing to settle things on that basis? Or you may have a reasonably sophisticated client who has a very good understanding of the legal process and he or she may set a budget for steps 1-6 inclusive ( this is in fact what many insurance companies do with their solicitors). That client does not care if Discovery or Defence or Counterclaim takes you 3 hours or 13 hours to prepare. They will agree to pay €X per task.
Distinctions of this sort are commonplace in many markets, certainly not unique to the law industry. Some construction resources are paid for on the basis of an agreed sum. Some are paid for on day rates. Does that make a nonsense of the work of the contract manager on a construction site? Of course not.
I don't think that paying in full what you owe a solicitor (or indeed any service provider), based on rates agreed at the outset can fairly be described as an unpalatable option. Bargaining should be done at the start, just like in any commercial relationship. If, whether before or after the job is finished, you are offered a discount, well then most ( but certainly not all) clients are happy to take it. For some clients (such as HSE) an audit trail is more important; those clients must receive detailed itemised bills and must pay full whack. This is all part and parcel of the very ordinary normal conduct of business that exists in many marketplaces. It is not improper or anti-consumer at all.The governing legislation is a bit of a fig leaf.
On the face of it, it would seem like that’s its purpose is to ensure that a customer is provided with a detailed bill of costs except in circumstances where a fee has been negotiated in advance.
The reality is that the fee is agreed after the work has been completed at which point the customer has no real bargaining capacity and has to accept the lesser of two otherwise unpalatable options.
I agree but, in reality, how often does pre agreement happen? I’m not having a go at you personally @MOB but i’d genuinely be interested to know.I don't think that paying in full what you owe a solicitor (or indeed any service provider), based on rates agreed at the outset can fairly be described as an unpalatable option. Bargaining should be done at the start, just like in any commercial relationship.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?