Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

Sorry to send anyone to sleep, but it is a Friday.

anon@8.59

I do not think there is a person on this forum that would disagree with you about being paid. Yes, I agree £500.00 is not what we would consider fair, but that is the way it goes.

The problem with paragraph 3 (I wait for comments from those better positioned in costs law, and it is just my opinion), is failing to mention fixed recoverable RTA rates in your retainer or somewhere in your initial terms and then routinely take 25% from relevant damages. This is asking for trouble. IE, you will be limited to those costs and all your large bills are null and void. Plus - legal costs against you as an assessment would be a Part 8 mandatory requirement if you fight it.

The advice we received a long time ago and before all these major cases were hitting the courts, was that you mention (in writing) FR costs, tell the clients that you will be charging basic hourly rates and not limiting your fees to FR costs, you are free to shop around with other firms to see if they will accept FR costs, explain the success fee being an unusual cost, and most importantly, mention somewhere (we put this in the last paragraph just above client's signature) about the risk assessment, CFA ready reckoner, their explanation of the circumstances and put the appropriate SF explaining why. Of course you mention the SF and the 25% etc.

We have had 3 challenges to RTA fees, and yes we could have told the other firm, 'no, you are not having the CFA because we sent it etc', and rely on the cases JG Green Sols have been fighting, but we sent our agreements and certain paperwork as we were very confident that our agreements along with an advice sheet (signed by client) in plain English was good enough to defeat a challenge at assessment. We had taken the 25% from relevant damages and the challenges did not get beyond the file request. We did speak with the firm off the record that were suing us, They stated that they had never come across a firm that actually put their risk assessment on a retainer that the client had signed or that clients should shop around (we do not use that phrase of course) for a better deal.

I hear (perhaps someone could shed light) that when a firm declines to hand over agreements etc relying on the fact that they were initially sent, that a Section 70 application can be made with a proviso at a CMC that the Court Orders disclosure and that there is a stay whilst the Claimant reviews and takes advice. Like I said, this is on the grapevine, and I am of the opinion that those not sending the agreements would argue that they are not obliged to do so as they already sent them.

Your details

Cancel