Report comment

There is no doubt that fixed and staged fees in family cases should be looked at more often than they are now. They are being agreed increasingly and will continue to grow in popularity. The argument that clients choose to spend a fortune on costs is not in itself persuasive. There is however an issue with the emotionally charged and discretionary nature of family law cases that presents particular challenges when attempting to scope and agree a fixed fee for a whole case or even stages of it. They are certainly not insuperable but the hourly rate should not be dismissed out of hand. Paying for the work that is actually done has its attractions.

I do not believe that it is possible to fix the fee on the basis of any significant "value" element other than perhaps reflecting high risk in a very high value or a mark up for very urgent work. If your spouse happens to be worth £50m and your lawyer helps you achieve a negotiated settlement of £25m quickly should the fee reflect the value obtained even though the time spent is modest? How do you have a value element in a children case? How do you put a value on the time spent supporting a distressed client through a traumatic divorce? What about the complex but relatively low value case? They are usually the most difficult. Should the lawyer not be paid for work properly done and estimated in advance just because it's financially low in value, even where the outcome is equally if not more important to the client?

I don't think there's a one size fits all approach. Some clients will want the hourly rate, properly applied by a lawyer that they trust. Others might prefer to risk paying more on a fixed fee than the hourly rate would have produced in order to get certainty. Some clients will always need more support than others and be willing to pay for it. Some cases will always be more expensive than others (dealing with the determined non-discloser for example)Yes, of course we must do more to guard against wildly disproportionate costs, but basing procedures on those very few cases where strong criticism might be justified risks injustice in other areas.