Report comment

Boromir: "I know why you seek solitude. You suffer. I see it day by day. You sure you do not suffer needlessly? There are other ways, Frodo, other paths that we might take."
Frodo: "I know what you would say. And it would seem like wisdom but for the warning in my heart."
In principle, the switch to an hourly rate format is not without its merits.
Throughout my own practice, wherever and whenever the opportunity arose to fix certainty in a fee I charged a fixed fee.
However, where circumstances required me to attempt a Madame Zelda crystal ball gazing, I instead worked on a costs limit basis: I would as far as possible try to assess what work was required to be done and then I’d cost the same.
If the credit limit was agreed I asked for the monies on account and I would carry out the work as required; if the work was completed or exceeded the costs limit a costs review would be carried out to determine why an overrun had or (more often) was likely to occur and to adjust the limit accordingly.
This had a sobering effect on demanding clients and kept clients focused on the job in hand, giving them control of their budget and of my retainer.
My main concern is the carte blanche assumption that fixed fee charging is fairer and more straightforward.
The reality is that careless application of the fixed fee model devalues the worth of the legal professional in the eyes of the client and facilitates the customer’s choice of solicitor with reference to cheapness rather than quality of service.
Lest there be any doubt about these assertions consider the effect of fixed fees on the conveyancing market: solicitors making losses and having to resort to lesser and lesser qualified staff (resulting in higher PII across the profession) and estate agents, thriving on their retained commission fees.
Also consider that the fixed fee model is a volume model, spreading the cost of legal services across all clients (which raises an interesting question: if it is a breach of the accounts’ rules to use one client’s monies to finance another’s matter then how can it be ethical for a client to be asked to pay a fixed fee of the same amount as someone who has had a lot more work done).
All of this aside, I rather suspect however that this PR stunt is a contrived attempt to drive non-member solicitors firms into the arms of the QS network by convincing them that fixed fee charging will only be profitable for QS members (which, in the very short term, may well be the case).
What the fixed fee model will do is seriously threaten the business models of many firms which in turn will result in lower salaries, a lessening of service provider quality, more PII uplifts and more closures: Craig’s sleeping comfy in his eiderdown, are you?