Laz - yes - going forward you should always propose 2 options

1. this on a no deal no pay basis - i'll have 1.5 f that if you close the deal but nothing if you don't;

2. or you can elect for the fee based on time and scope (by which you will pay for what you have asked for - and i will only g out of scope if you pay for out of scope) - and you will pay whether we close / don't close - and even though mr bank, its your client paying, you will make sure they pay.  

if you're not on risk , you can give us a discount

Lawyers already price in the upside on their ridiculous fees. 

Anyway big talk from Mr ‘find and replace’

oh, I’m always happy to discuss discounts clubbo - rack rates are fictional, everyone knows that

fixed fees absolutely fine for work that can properly be scoped

I’m a commercial guy

I would heartily encourage all ROFers to commission my services if they are in need of advice in my field. You know where to find me (in descending order of likeliness: (1) office (2) ROF (3) pub).

Had a client middle of last year who wanted a 100% discount on an agreed, very modest, fee. ie he just ignored the bill, the half dozen reminders and then the country court claim so we got a judgment in default of defence.  Unfortunately for him he was in the process of regidging his house when the CCJ showed up on his file.  Bank pulled his gidge offer and he had to re-apply after paying the judgment debt and getting the CCJ removed just as r8s rocketed last Autumn.  The new rate he got must have cost him 10 times the bill he ignored.  Absolute w**ker

Nice Buzz, v nice 👌🏻 

Buzz - interested to know why you went to county court rather than stat demand / bankruptcy petition?  (sorry for dull legal question)

Someone dissatisfied with buzz’s services. How could we have guessed that? 
 

parsnip, he prob has his own car parking space there given the number of claims he has to file to get people to pay

and a recent utility bill. 

Snippers, it was a modest bill and below the stat minimum for a bankruptcy petition 

Risky, go and change the toner cartridge on the photocopier, you should only need to be told once. 

heh @ self hating lawyer, risky

Nota lawyer laz 

Fascinating that my Covid thread on here deleted almost instantly…..

Nota lot Laz

fixed it for ya 

Risk sharing is a stupid concept if the client holds all the cards re giving instructions.  It’s an indemnity on client stupidity.  

clients are well known never to be stupid

The sad secret is that if a client chooses to just ignore our invoice, my firm is more likely to eventually just drop it rather than pursue.

the ethics about fees based on upside - you get paid if the deal closes, but not if it doesnt are interesting.  If you knew you were close to year end, would you really push that hard to win all of the "market" points - or would you do what you could to get the thing signed (as quickly as possible) so you can get your bill in for your own bonus.  Goes somewhat against the obligation to act in the best interests of your client if you have an incentive for the deal to happen regardless of risk. 

I have used that line with clients a few times (its good you are paying me whether the deal happens or not) because I am the one person in the room who doesnt have a personal upside in it happening - so listening to me is probably a good thing.  

Hard agree - discounts with zero upside are mad, but it’s rare to win an identified uplift in my field, though the foxes deal fee implies a fat profit anyway. Most clients now wanting tiered abort discounts - a straight 50% spooks them if the deal dies in a week.

Christ what a PITA