Fees

Where the dispute does not satisfy our "no win no fee", DBA or CFA policies we offer our legal services on hourly basis. In such case every hour is considered six units, each ten minutes is being one unit and charged per unit. We assess your case and do our best to provide an estimate for your case at the outset. Details will be included in the client care letter where you will have to chance to review and direct your questions if you have any. Our lawyers hourly rates are as follows: ​ Can Canko : £200 + VAT Pinar Canko : £200 + VAT

Key Insights - Commercial Litigation typically requires the most extensive preparation, often involving multiple stages that are time-intensive, particularly during trial preparation and the trial itself. - Civil and Employment Litigation also demand significant time but generally less than commercial disputes. - Debt Recovery Litigation tends to be more straightforward and thus requires fewer hours. - Intellectual Property Litigation can be highly variable depending on the complexity of the issues and the need for expert testimony and detailed disclosures. These estimates provide a framework for understanding the typical workload involved in different types of litigation processes in the UK. The actual hours can vary based on the specifics of each case, client needs, and unforeseen complexities.

Your legal representative will conduct a comprehensive assessment of your financial situation, case merits, and objectives. It may be beneficial to combine different funding methods, such as private funding with a Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA), or After the Event (ATE) insurance with third-party litigation funding. Often, your legal representative will consult an independent broker to determine the most appropriate funding method for your specific needs.

You should check if you have any existing ‘before the event’ (BTE) legal expenses insurance. This type of insurance is often included in common policies like building, contents, car, or directors’ and officers’ liability insurance. If you have legal expenses insurance, your cover will be reviewed.

If you don’t have suitable legal expenses insurance, you can consider ATE insurance. This type of insurance typically covers disbursements and your opponent’s costs if you are liable to pay them. It can be used alongside other funding methods like CFAs or Damages-Based Agreements (DBAs).

The premium payable for ATE depends on the type and level of cover sought and the risk assessment. It can typically be 30% to 45% of the sum insured, or calculated as a percentage of the costs incurred when a claim is successfully concluded. Some insurers may offer lower premiums if the insured accepts a high insurance excess. They are rarely recoverable from the losing party, so it is safe to assume you will not recover the costs relating to ATE.

Third-party litigation funding involves a third party financing all or part of the legal costs in return for a fee paid from the proceeds you recover. This option can be considered if you cannot afford to pursue a legal action without it, or if you wish to finance multiple claims or share the risk of pursuing a claim.

Third-party funders typically prefer cases that have undergone a preliminary investigation to ascertain the strengths and weaknesses of the case, ensuring the claim is not purely speculative. Therefore, a solicitor might need to conduct an initial assessment of the case’s merits. However, note that some funders may explicitly state they will not cover expenses incurred before the claim was brought to their attention or before they confirmed they would fund the claim. Hence, it’s crucial to notify a third-party funder as soon as possible once you become aware of a potential dispute if you intend to use third-party funding. If your solicitor thinks third-party funding might be suitable for you, they should explain this to you as soon as possible and in detail, so you can make an informed decision.

First, identify and research potential funders. This can be done through the Law Society’s Litigation Funding magazine, or your solicitor should be able to suggest some options. You should then approach the funder to discuss the claim and explore potential arrangements. If you don’t have a solicitor, you should provide a written summary of your claim’s key aspects. You’ll then need to complete a written application for funding, providing detailed information and documentation to the funder. If you have a solicitor, they will need to provide these documents, including: A proposal form A detailed summary of the case All relevant contemporaneous documents Any pleadings (formal allegations made by the parties of their respective claims and defenses submitted to the court) and correspondence (If relevant) the solicitor’s advice on the strengths and weaknesses of the case A costs budget and detailed timetable Once the funder has carried out preliminary due diligence, it will make an initial decision about whether it is willing to fund the claim. Subject to this decision, the funder will then offer terms of agreement for you to sign.

Insurers may have a panel of solicitors they regularly instruct, but ultimately, you have the freedom to choose which solicitor you wish to instruct. It’s important to note that, for ethical reasons, funders must not have excessive control, unreasonably withdraw from the case, or extract an unconscionable amount of money from the case. Excessive control could render the funding agreement void and unenforceable. “Excessive control” includes: Taking or influencing strategic decisions Seeking to interfere in the solicitor/client relationship Controlling or meddling in settlement negotiation

Yes, third-party litigation funding is regulated through the following bodies: Financial Conduct Authority Claims Management Regulator Judiciary.gov.uk – see the Code of Conduct for Litigation Funders Financial Ombudsman Association of Litigation Funders of England & Wales

In some cases, funders may expressly state that they will not pay for expenses incurred before the claim was brought to their attention or before they agreed to fund the claim. Hence, it’s important to notify a third-party funder as soon as you’re aware of any potential dispute. If the claim is unsuccessful, the funder may lose its investment and therefore not be entitled to receive any payment.

A CFA is an agreement with a lawyer or organization that provides legal services on the condition that their fees are only payable under specified circumstances. These are also commonly known as ‘no win no fee’ agreements, and the most common example is that you will only pay your solicitor’s legal fees if you ‘win’ your case. CFAs are available for both Claimants and Defendants. Lawyers often charge a ‘success fee’ when acting under a CFA, which is only payable under certain circumstances.

A DBA is an agreement between a lawyer and a client where the client agrees to pay the lawyer a percentage of the sums recovered in a claim. The agreement usually requires payment if sums are recovered either by settling the claim or after trial.

Advantages include improved cash flow as you won’t have to pay any legal fees (except expenses, such as expert’s fees including any barrister’s fees) until recovery of money in your claim, and improved certainty on costs as you will be better placed to predict the costs of your claim, and if the case is lost you will not have to pay your own legal fees (other than expenses). Disadvantages include decreased winnings as even if you are successful in your claim, you run the risk of having a significant amount of your winnings deducted to cover your solicitors “success fee”, and additional costs as it is likely that you will still need to find the means to fund your disbursements and opponent’s costs in the event that you lose, either of which could be substantial.

In circumstances where we agree on a DBA and agree to be paid a percentage of sums recovered if you win, we must pay any barrister’s fees and any VAT out of that percentage, in addition to our own fees. When you win or settle your claim, we would be paid our fees from the funds you receive. We would receive no fees at all during the dispute. If you lose, we would not receive any fees.

The fee is simply a percentage of sums recovered. For example, where we agree on a fee of 20%, if you are awarded damages of £500,000, we would be paid £100,000.

You can recover costs from a losing opponent on a normal hourly rate basis. Whatever is recovered from the opponent will be deducted from the amount owed by you to us. But your opponent will not have to pay more than the percentage payable by you under the DBA. This will be particularly relevant where the fees incurred on an hourly rate basis are a high proportion of damages recovered.

The general rule in litigation is that the unsuccessful party will be ordered to pay a proportion of the costs of the successful party. The court has a very wide discretion when making costs orders. It is incredibly rare to recover 100% of your costs, even if you wholly and fundamentally succeed in the litigation. Factors that are taken into consideration by the court when determining costs include the conduct of the parties and the effect of any offers to settle that have been made during the course of the proceedings (often in the form of “Part 36 offers” – see below).

There is an ever-increasing expectation that parties will attempt alternative dispute resolution (ADR), and in particular mediation. If a party unreasonably refuses an offer of mediation then that party is at a real risk of not being awarded their costs even in the event that they are successful at trial. In the case of BXB v (1)Watch Tower And Bible Tract Society Of Pennsylvannia (2) Trustees Of The Barry Congreation Of Jehova’s Witnesses [2020] Ewhc 656 (Admin), Mr Justice Chamberlain set out the four applicable principles to consider when a party unreasonably refuses to engage in ADR/mediation.

There is nothing to stop a party making an offer to settle in any way it chooses. One way is for a party to make an offer compliant with Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules (often referred to as a “Part 36 offer”), and there can be tactical and cost advantages to making a formal offer under Part 36. Part 36 offers in the prescribed form aim to encourage parties to try to settle a dispute. They set out the costs and other consequences that a party will face if it refuses a reasonable offer to settle made under Part 36. The costs consequences of making, accepting or rejecting a Part 36 offer vary and depend upon a number of factors, all of which can be explained to you by your solicitor.