Report comment

"However, this argument disproportionately shifts the risks on to consumers, who are already disadvantaged by virtue of information asymmetry. Moreover, this is not a credible argument when one considers the experience and knowledge firms have in understanding the different directions cases might go in, along with the likely price implications."

What the hell are they banging on about.
1. why should the firm acting for the client take on the risk of the case. We inform the client of the risks as it is their case and they decide if they want to risk their cash.
2. It is very difficult to tell what direction a case will go in. In litigation it may be almost impossible until at the earliest, disclosure stage.

What do we have to say to the client, oh your case can go any number of 100 different ways and here is a costing for each of the 100 scenarios. Also, here is a costing in case it goes none of those ways. Who pays for us to carry out this case analysis and draft the 50 page costs letter? Unlikely the client will want to.

This demonstrates a huge lack of understanding of the complexities of law and dealing with cases. Areas of legal services that can be done on a fixed fee are already done on a fixed fee with the cost advised to the client at the outset. There is a reason why nothing else is done on a fixed fee unless it has been rammed down our throat by the government.