Solicitor’s bill

Salvadore said:
My understanding of the client relationship is that they engage a solicitor, trust him/her to do whatever is necessary and have a near conniption when presented with the bill.

Am I wrong?
Click to expand...
I certainly can't tell you that this never happens, but under our current regulatory regime any solicitor that allows this to happen is asking for trouble. The client should have any conniption out of the way after the first or second cost update.
 
Legal costs are too high in Ireland. All this opacity as regards fees, much of it in simple contradiction of the law only serves to obscure that fact.

One bill for people who pay what is charged, a higher bill for people who query it. Come off it.

People are reluctant to query bills from undertakers and lawyers. All this means that layers of costs go into the legal profession unchallenged, that lawyers expectations of inflated incomes become embedded.

The OP and every legal client should challenge his/her solicitor on the costs presented, especially where it appears from the information given that the solicitor did not comply with their obligations under the law with regard to notifying the client about costs at the outset.
 
cremeegg said:
One bill for people who pay what is charged, a higher bill for people who query it. Come off it.
Click to expand...

I thought I had made this clear, but apparently not.

What you have described above simply does not happen (or if it does, I have not come across it).

With a competent client, with whom you have a good and continuing relationship, you might go through the work in a summary fashion (this will still take a half an hour) in a face to face meeting.

You might explain that based on the information which you have both reviewed at that meeting, it looks like the bill is going to come in at a minimum of €X.

Crucially, the client will have seen more than enough information at this point to be able to agree and accept that this is indeed the case.

At that point, the transparent and pragmatic solicitor and the informed client are perfectly free to make an agreement based on the solicitor saying "how about I just charge you €Y" and the client saying "yeah, seems fair enough, go ahead".

No solicitor with half a brain would issue a bill saying "it's this amount if you agree, but more if you query it".

No client with half a brain would accept that sort of thing.
 
I'm still a bit confused with your jam for everyone comments, why should a service provider share in the jam?
 
In my experience, when a difficult transaction gets to a successful outcome, a happy/satisfied/relieved client will happily agree that there was extra work in getting things across the line and will be glad to pay an uplift on the originally quoted fee. The client regards this as fair and as an investment in their business relationship. Much the same considerations apply when a service provider gives a discount - it's an investment in a continuing business relationship.
 
Last edited:

It still sounds loose. What would happen for example if the outcome was unsuccessful and the client was less enthusiastic about paying an uplift for the sake of investment in the business relationship?

In terms of sequencing, the governing legislation provides that an agreed fee may be applied. The subsequent section provides for production of a bill of costs but provides for an exemption where a fee has been mutually agreed in accordance with the previous section.

The sequencing of these provisions would suggest that the requirement to produce a bill of costs may be disregarded where a fee has been agreed in advance.

The practice you describe is where a fee is agreed after completion of the work where the choice is X or X plus the cost of providing a bill of costs.

I seriously doubt if this was the intention of the legislation but I accept that it’s sufficiently vague to allow for a generous interpretation.
 
That should be agreed once it becomes apparent extra work not originally envisaged is required regardless of the outcome.

This sounds a bit like charging more because the client has had a positive outcome and they may be easier to Fleece a bit.
 
Some people see conspiracies everywhere. In my experience dealing with professionals, a fixed fee arrangement will be a round number (e.g. €10,000), but an interim bill for an ‘on the clock’ piece of work will also be a round number (e.g. €10,000), with only a final bill to clear a time-code being an unusual number (e.g. €10,382).
 
Lack of transparency is no smoke without fire when it's comes to overcharging.

If someone goes to the effort if providing "good value" they usually aren't shy about detailing it.
 

If this went though insurance there are payment codes for different treatments. It's itemized up the wazoo for insurance.

However I have been through this before with insurance companies and Medical professionals not giving itemized bills and the insurance not challenging it. Even when the insurance had been over charged my experience was they didn't have any interest in challenging it. In my opinion this is why same treatments charges are more expensive via insurance than public.

Same with car insurance claims they stopped fighting them causing an explosion in fraud. When car quote vary enormously with little transparency I'm not a fan.

When dealing with legal issues you have to haggle upfront its not unusual to get huge discounts. Be aware of all charges down to phone calls and letters. Every "I'll give them a call" you'll pay for. Your paying for someone's time. Don't waste it.
 
AlbacoreA said:
If this went though insurance there are payment codes for different treatments. It's itemized up the wazoo for insurance.
Click to expand...

Paid from my own pocket!

It's merely a bit of expensive high tech plumbing in an extremely clean workshop. Basically turn off pump, quickly replace dodgy pipes and valves, then turn pump on again! Bemusingly, the anaesthetist's fee was slightly higher than the surgeon's.
 

The anaesthetist kept you alive. The surgeon merely refrained from killing you.
 

The point was treatments are itemized. They have a code for everything. They need this to align and bill health insurance. Regardless if you don't go through instance.
 
Blackrock1 said:
That should be agreed once it becomes apparent extra work not originally envisaged is required regardless of the outcome
Click to expand...

I'm a transaction lawyer, mainly. Let's say my client is selling some valuable development land. We have a binding contract but it is with an SPV that has no assets and has only paid a token deposit.

The transaction has dragged six months beyond closing date. If this sale does not close, my client has no way of paying my agreed fee. And now, instead of a nice neat closing, I am into enforcement and advising on the best strategy to get this mess finished.

Maybe it's me. But I just kinda don't agree that right now is the time to say

"before I do any more work, this is going to cost extra and I need to be sure you are happy to pay regardless of outcome"

To me, that would feel a lot like kicking the client while they are down.

I'm more a "let's get through this and then we can have a chat about this " lawyer.

I don't think my approach is uncommon. Nor do I think it could be described as a way to 'fleece' my client.
 
Last edited:
MOB said:
I'm a transaction lawyer, mainly. Let's say my client is selling some valuable development land. We have a binding contract but it is with an SPV that has no assets and has only paid a token deposit.
Click to expand...
Did the client understand what they were getting into. A token deposit ? A counterparty that cannot be kept to its contract ?

If the client understood the risks involved, you could say, well you took a chance and it hasn't paid off, its going to cost to move on from this.
 
If I was your client I'd want to know exactly how much extra you were planning on charging. I don't agree with this let's sit down and chat when you make lots of money.
 
Gordon Gekko said:
I don’t think that’s what was said to be fair.
Click to expand...
If you take it in the context of the earlier jam for everyone comments I don't think it's an unfair inference.

I'm dealing with a few different legal firms at the moment that don't appear to understand the concept of a fixed fee engagement so it's colouring my thinking!
 
One needs to be fair to all sides. Fixed fees work in certain circumstances where the amount of work involved is known. But a solicitor would want his or her head examined to agree to a fixed fee for something where the time input is unknown.
 
Gordon Gekko said:
One needs to be fair to all sides. Fixed fees work in certain circumstances where the amount of work involved is known. But a solicitor would want his or her head examined to agree to a fixed fee for something where the time input is unknown.
Click to expand...

One needs to be fair to all sides. Fixed fees work in certain circumstances where the amount of work involved is known. But a client would want his or her head examined to agree to an hourly fee for something where the time input is unknown.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register