FIXED COSTS: GRADES OF SOLICITORS AND LENGTH OF CALL OF COUNSEL
This is all dealt with in my new book – Personal Injury Small Claims, Portals and Fixed Costs which will be out in March. This is three volumes and over 1,300 pages. You can pre-order your copy at a discounted price of £68 including P&P (normal price £80 including P&P) by 6 March.
To pre-order your copy, contact Kerry Underwood on 01442 430 900 or email firstname.lastname@example.org.
This is also all dealt with in my Personal Injury Reforms course this May, which can booked here – early bird discount for booking and paying by 6 March.
In a fixed costs regime should there be any variation of fixed fee depending upon the grade of fee earner and the seniority of counsel?
No, in my view. This would not be a truly fixed costs scheme as if there are different fixed fees for different grades of fee earner and seniority of counsel, then that opens up a can of worms in that the paying party will always be able to argue that a more junior level of fee earner, or a less experienced barrister, should have been engaged on the work.
Arguments about the level of fee earner are amongst the most common disputes in detailed assessments and indeed it is rare to see a case where the paying party is not alleging that a lower grade fee earner should have been used.
In fact the extra amounts for more senior fee earners are very low – around 14% extra for a grade A fee earner as compared with a grade B fee earner, for example.
A blended rate, taking into account different levels of fee earners, but resulting in a fixed cost, whatever the seniority of the lawyer, benefits better lawyers and will tend to benefit more experienced lawyers.
This is because an experienced lawyer will generally be able to deal with work and make decisions in far less time and will gain a far greater advantage than the 14% extra or whatever.
It is the classic conundrum that I pose in my lectures.
A client rings up at 2.00pm with a query and the lawyer does not know the answer and says she will look it up.
The lawyer does so, takes one hour to do so, and then telephones the client with the answer and says that there will be a bill on its way for £200.00.
By a remarkable coincidence, as the lawyer puts the phone down, another client rings with exactly the same query.
Does the solicitor:
- give the answer there and then and tell the new client that it is not worth preparing a bill;
- tell the client that she will research the matter and get back and then subsequently telephone the client and charge £200.00 for the advice; or
- tell the new client that she knows the answer and the fee will be £250.00, the rationale for the higher fee being that she is now a better lawyer than she was an hour ago as she knows the point without the need to look it up.
That is obviously an extreme example to make a point, but the general logic of it applies to a great deal of civil litigation.