Skip to main content

Fixed fees v hourly rates

Judge examining a very reasonable bill from London Drink Driving Solicitor
"Are you sure you're not undercharging, Mr Diable?"

The Legal Services Board (they oversee the legal services regulators – they’re the bosses bosses boss) has published research showing that firms charging fixed fees are likely to be cheaper than those charging hourly rates.  This is something most of us in the legal services industry already knew.

At London Drink Driving Solicitor, we think that we should be providing an excellent service for a reasonable price.  That doesn’t mean the cheapest - you can get cheaper and with some of those firms you will get a worse service, trust me I’ve reviewed some of their files for unhappy clients.  But what it does mean is that when you instruct a solicitor like me who is working on a fixed fee you know what you are going to pay.

Let me give you an example, I currently have a civil law solicitor doing some very simple debt work for me.  He originally estimated £500 for the entirety of the case.  So far I have paid him £1,825 and the case hasn’t even got a court hearing yet!  Unsurprisingly he’s charging me by the hour.  That’s great for firms because they can estimate a fee and then if they decide case is "more complex" than they expect the fee can go up.  They don’t run any risk because if you as a client don’t like it and refuse to pay they’ll stop working on your case!

Whereas, if I say to a client “I will charge you £X” then I know I have to get the fee correct first time because there is no option to raise the price later.  This is easier for me because I have specialised in drink driving law for years now and am very good at spotting the issues in cases so I rarely get it wrong.  But, from a client point of view it doesn’t matter if I get it wrong because I still have to provide them with the service so if I were to undercharge them they get an even better deal.

Let’s take a typical case I conducted recently.  The client, was accused of failing to provide a specimen of blood for analysis.  In preparing that case, I held consultations with the client and his witnesses, I prepared witness statements, reviewed evidence and prepared for two trials (two because the court treble booked the first trial; this is quite normal sadly).  I’m looking at the claim for payment I submitted to the government agency that refunds legal costs and I can see that preparation took a total of 31 hours!  There was 6 hours and 30 minutes of travel, no waiting, 20 letters and about five hours of advocacy. 

At an hourly rate that fee would total £7,525.  Looking at my total invoices to that client he was charged a total of £3,600 for over 42 hours’ of expert legal work by a specialist solicitor that resulted in an acquittal.  By the way, that's 53% less than if the client paid by the hour!  

Although, an innocent defendant can claim their legal costs back from the government it makes no difference to how much you get back whether you pay £7,525 or £3,600 because the government has put a cap on what you can claim.

So, should you be paying solicitors by the hour or on a fixed fee basis?  That’s a decision for you, but it pays to speak with an expert who knows what work is needed on a case and who can keep costs down.

If you do need a solicitor who charges reasonable fixed fees you can reach me on 020 8242 4440 – just saying.


Popular posts from this blog

Ched Evans

Before I begin, I will say that at around 4,500 words this is probably the longest blog I’ve ever posted but I think it’s all necessary to set the scene for this case and explain the background that has been largely ignored or airbrushed in the press. Despite its length, I have not attempted to include every little detail of either fact or law but have done my best to provide a balanced picture of the Ched Evans case, what happened and why the courts reached the decisions they did. There has been so much written about the Ched Evans case over the past weekend, much of it based on a very shaky grasp of the facts and law, that I decided I would read up about the case and weigh in (hopefully on a slightly firmer footing than most of the articles I’ve read so far).

Broadly speaking there seem to be three groups who have opinions on the case:
1.Sexual violence groups (including people describing themselves as “radical feminists”) who appear to take the view that the case is awful, the Court o…

How do the police decide whether to charge a suspect?

A question I’m often asked by clients (and in a roundabout way by people arriving at this blog using searches that ask the question in a variety of ways), is “how do the police decide whether to charge or take no further action (NFA)?”
What are the options?
Let’s have a quick think about what options are available to the police at the end of an investigation.
First, they can charge or report you for summons to attend court.  Charging means that you are given police bail and are required to attend court in person.  A summons is an order from the court for you to attend or for you to send a solicitor on your behalf.  In many cases where a person is summonsed, the court will allow you the option of entering a plea by post.
Second, you may be given a caution.  These can be a simple caution, which on the face of it is a warning not to be naughty in future, or it can be a conditional caution.  Conditions could include a requirement to pay for the cost of damage or compensation, etc.  Either…

Bid to prevent defendants knowing who accuses them of a crime

When I read The Trial by Kafka and Nineteen Eighty-Four by Orwell, I took them as warnings of how a bad justice system wrecks lives of those caught up in it. Sadly, some Members of Parliament and the House of Lords seem to view the books more as a guide to how they would like our Criminal Justice System to run. Today, I read of plans to hide the names of accusers and witnesses from defendants in a large number of cases. Victims of sexual offences, such as rape, have had the right to lifelong anonymity for many years now. This means that it is a criminal offence to publish information that will lead to a complainant being identified. A Bill currently being considered by Parliament would extend that anonymity to bar defendants and their lawyers knowing the name of the person accusing them. This would apply not only in sexual offences, as has been reported in the press, but also in violent offences.
The anonymity currently offered to victims of sexual offences is not total, the complainant…