Report comment

Returning to the fixed fee vs hourly rate debate - some of the above comments show how the profession simply doesn't 'get' the point about fees. One good example is "it's not fair to average out the fees and then make people with 'easier' work pay for the work of others". That suggests that the cost of anything has to be the time it takes to do it, which is wrong from the outset. Take conveyancing - you are paying for a result (a successful house purchase/sale). You don't care how many hours the lawyer takes. Should I pay a slower lawyer more and a more expert, efficient lawyer less? The fact that some jobs will take longer and some less, doesn't mean it's somehow 'unfair' to charge a set price for your conveyancing service. Like almost anything in business, you work out your cost base and set a price which allows you to make the maximum profit bearing in mind competition, supply, demand etc. There is variation in the provision of countless products and services but we don't necessarily charge each of them on a bespoke basis. Many medical procedures can take different lengths of time - from eye and dental checks to complex surgeries. We don't get charged by the minute for them. Imagine - I'm sorry Mr X, but your private colonoscopy was really involved and we hit some trouble along the way, so we're going to have to charge you double - it wouldn't be fair otherwise to all those people whose procedures are much easier. Quoting a price for specific work - like a builder would - and sticking to is eminmently achievable. We should know better than the client what turns a case may take, based on our experience. If something truly unexpected happens then how we define the work we are going to carry out should be clear enough to allow additional charges for that and, if it's not, that's our fault. I say good luck to QS on this one - they're on to a winner in my view.