1. Instructions of July 1, 2015 (Legal Profession Uniforme Law 4 cl 18) For clients other than commercial and government clients (Legal Profession Uniforme Law s 170 and Corporations Act 2001 s 2001 s 2001 s45A) Implementation of costs and cost agreement (only member) Disclosure of fees and conditional cost agreement (only member) Contracting letter (only members) The Law Society has entered into a rule practitioners are required to enter into agreements, If other practitioners, solicitors` rule 37, 10 June 1994: see [2.2290]. The rule was repealed on July 7, 1994. Since then, no legal rights have been put in place to impose additional publicity. Motor Vehicle Accident Disclosure With respect to a car accident, the questions that a practitioner must disclose to the customer are, as noted above, except that exceptions to the advertising requirement are not available. However, if the practitioner wishes to withdraw the costs of the firm party/party with respect to the car accident, thus, in addition to the general disclosure, as noted above, the practitioner must also notify the client, in a separate written document, that even if the client is made available for the costs, he must bear the “gap” between party/party and lawyer/client fees: cl 11 (1)c), motor vehicle compensation regulation (No. 2) 1999. Practitioners must disclose to clients the basis of the costs of legal services to be provided to the client by counsel: Legal Profession Act 1987, s 175 (1). Section 175 (2) requires disclosure of: The concept of disclosure developed from the widely held view that many clients were not aware of the likely costs of a case until they received an invoice from their lawyer. The argument is that the profession often sees clients in immediate difficulty seeking services without thinking about costs or other implications. In these circumstances, the argument is that it is preferable to make the client understand the costs and other implications at the beginning of a case rather than being involved in litigation when attempting to impose a fee for those services.
This argument was supported by a study of claims against Law Cover, which showed numerous claims caused by miscommunication during the retainer. If the actual amount of costs is not disclosed, the practitioner must provide the client with an estimate of the projected costs: s 177 (1). The practitioner must also reveal any significant increase in this estimate: s 177 (3). This last revelation should be made as soon as possible, as soon as the practitioner becomes aware of the likely increase: s 178 (4). The definition of “significant increase” may receive some attention from evaluators and the courts. Disclosure must be preceded by the retention of the practitioner: s 178 (1). However, if it is not reasonably feasible to make disclosure before the intruder, disclosure should be made as soon as possible after taking office: S 178 (2). A practitioner who keeps another practitioner on behalf of a client is required to disclose to the client, as soon as the client receives prior knowledge of the fees of the selected practitioner: s 178 (3). The terms of the term do not imply that the terms of payment must be disclosed. This will undoubtedly be the subject of particular attention by experts and the courts. No provision has been adopted to require disclosure of other substances: see S 175, paragraph 2, point f). A practitioner retained by another practitioner on behalf of a client is not required to communicate directly to the client.
The instruction practitioner must reveal to the client: s 175 (3). This subsection does not exclude a lawyer who directly discloses to a client and a lawyer that they are speaking directly to the same client.