![]() I’m also not envisaging that fee caps will be low fee either.įor example, if the net pool is $2 million and the cap is set at $200k per party from issuing proceedings up to conclusion of trial, whilst that’s still an eye-watering amount it at least bears some proportionality to the pool, taking into account that the parties could if they agree settle by consent for a tiny fraction of that cost.īut in constrast, a case with a $400k pool where parties spend $200k each and have nothing left is a complete travesty (and unfortunately, this kind of thing happens all too often). Of course, we need to be very careful in making sure that parties are afforded procedural fairness to fairly litigate their case, however arguably the other side of the coin is that without cost proportionality the legal system is equally farcical.įamily Law practitioners, what do you think? ![]() One reason I support this is that without a court-imposed fee cap, even lawyers who have an efficient mindset can be hamstrung if their client and/or the other party wants to take a “leave no stone unturned/argue everything“ approach. In the #familylaw jurisdiction, I personally support the idea of the court imposing fee caps for cases provided this is assessed on a case-by-case basis after hearing from the parties and with opportunity to have the cap reviewed in a straightforward manner if circumstances change. If, after careful explanation, the advice still remains hard to fathom or a bitter pill to swallow, ultimately it may boil down to them having to decide how much they trust in the honesty and competency of their lawyer.Ī thought-provoking article about reducing legal costs, including making an argument for “hard caps” for trial preparation. To have the best hope of our clients understanding and trusting our advice, we need to endeavour to see things from their perspective and speak to them on that level with sincerity, empathy, and patience.Īnd for our clients, in some cases they may need to take a "leap of faith". However, even such careful explanation may only leave our clients with an approximate or imperfect understanding. This means that clients do not "see" things the way we do, and the intuitive manner in which we understand strategy will likely need careful unpacking when explained to a client. ![]() And whilst that may be correct, not addressing these matters empathetically will mean that the client is still at some level blocking/resisting and not fully "listening" to the advice.Īnd when it comes to case strategy, we need to realise the strategic thinking of an expert arises from deep conceptual knowledge of the subject matter, sophisticated pattern recognition from the distillation of past experiences, and the split-second canvassing of numerous permutations of future possibilities. Many lawyers are dismissive of emotions and subjective beliefs and tell their clients these are "not relevant" legally. ![]() One of the great challenges of being a #familylaw practitioner is seeing things from our client's perspective and helping them see things from ours.Ĭlients are entitled to understand the basis upon which their lawyer's advice rests, and we should always endeavour to do so in a straightforward, empathetic and patient fashion, using plain language.Īdvice can trigger deep emotional responses, or challenge firmly-held beliefs or concepts in our clients' minds. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |