Report comment

You might go some way to redressing one imbalance (if it exists at all) but don't you create others?

How is it going to look when Joe Bloggs & Co, the high street practice, have nicely published their hourly rate of £150 + VAT, are up against Pricey & Dear, the big boys in the town centre, whose hourly rate is double/triple/[insert figure here]?

Joe Bloggs' client might now have some doubts about their solicitor, who may well have ten times the experience and ability of the other guy, but is working at half the price. After all, everything is measured by how much it costs, right?

At the same time, Pricey & Dear's client will know right off the bat that their opponent doesn't have the same financial muscle that they do and will be looking to exploit that imbalance at every turn.

Of course I'm not naive enough to think that these things aren't often inferred already but if your ethos is to create level playing fields and all that, you surely don't push for something that will *emphasise* differences between firms.

If someone asks me for a quote/estimate, I'll give them one, on a no obligation basis. That's transparent enough. But there are many many factors that go into the figure I arrive at, some less tangible than others. If the would-be client doesn't like the numbers, they have absolute freedom to go elsewhere, but if we have to start publishing our costs, all we do is create a downward ratchet on price, and we'll forever be explaining why you're quoting £50 more on a particular job.

Some firms will then feel the need to artificially up their published rates just to give themselves some headroom and aren't we then flying in the face of "access to justice" and all that?