Report comment

21 March 2019 17:23 GMT

I know what you are getting at. It is clearly evident in many of the comments here, that people just do not understand the advice you are supposed to give. If the legal professionals do not understand costs, how on earth are they going to explain it to the client? Clients are not being given the correct advice in a lot of cases. If they did, I can imagine the blank looks they would get. I know that firms are basically gearing their costs to ensure that they get 25% regardless. Legal fees are low.... and as the crooks of Claims Direct, TAG have long gone.... it is now the turn of the legal profession to take control. Not going well at the moment.

You have to tell the client about fixed costs, you have to tell them that you are not accepting fixed costs and that you are charging hourly rates etc etc. You have to get their informed consent, not just a signature on a R2 to say that the client has agreed YOUR hourly rate. Many R2's have no mention of fixed costs and no doubt that is to ensure that they get their 25%. I have looked at R2's and CFA's from law firms that all of us will know, and there is a common theme. Very few mentioned fixed costs. ..... more recent agreements do. CFA's -

'Our SF is 25 % of the damages' - this is clearly wrong

Or our SF is 100% of our costs, or 25% of our costs. and we cap 25% etc.

You need to explain the SF, why you are charging it and good practice would be to mentioned the Ready Reckoner.

Passenger RTA rear shunt. Tell me how this type of case can possibly justify a 100% success fee along with an ATE of £300 or so.

I do feel sorry for firms that are having to pay back fees, but I do not agree with Bacon and his argument on a business model angle. I doubt he has taken this on a CFA even with a 100% uplift if successful. Perhaps he has.

So - what are the chances of success on the appeal? Care to give Success Fee percentage?