Report comment

Re 13.04: "...take a basic contract action..."

And thus the fallacy of this plan is shown. What constitutes a 'basic contract action'? What constitutes 'a divorce'?

Let's say you can actually define a basic contract action or divorce. What if that original position changes, perhaps in terms of value or complexity?

How does it benefit a client to be given a price (at a rock-bottom, 'competitive' level as the SRA wants) only to be told that that price has quadrupled based upon the individual facts of the case?

Is it no longer viable for a potential client, being the competition-focused, savvy consumer the SRA believes they are, to shop around by simply asking their choices of firm for the basis for charging, hourly rates etc?

The SRA says that clients are knowledgeable about what they want and will absolutely, definitely be shopping around for a good deal, whilst simultaneously requiring that we spoon-feed the said same people because they can't just find out by asking if they actually want to do so.