Unscrupulous haggling is creeping into the profession

Spurious claims will call into question what we know was a ‘Rolls-Royce’ service.

From a professional perspective, it is galling. Sadly, from a commercial perspective, it is often prudent to bite our lip and offer a reduction, which is exactly what the client was hoping for.

Concerns about service or conduct should be raised and resolved long before any bill is despatched. If not, a solicitor will understandably suspect they are being taken for a ride. The reasons for this emerging trend of what is effectively haggling could be long debated. Has the recession turned us into a nation of Del Boys? Are modern law firms considered a soft touch compared with their austere predecessors? Or are we simply better at – or more confident about – complaining nowadays?

Traditionally, haggling is associated with Middle Eastern or African countries, especially colourful, noisy souks or bazaars, where bargaining is considered an art form or even entertainment. Prices are inflated at the outset with an understanding between the parties that they will be reduced - but by how much? Once a deal is struck it must be honoured.

The time for haggling is before purchase, but with professional services there is a growing tendency to haggle post-purchase by claiming dissatisfaction. ‘Money off’ is considered fair compensation, or at least a pragmatic resolution.

Consumer rights campaigner Martin Lewis is actively promoting haggling by urging consumers to ask for a discount on the basis that ‘there is nothing to lose’.

Research carried out by his hugely popular website, moneysavingexpert.com found high street shops such as Comet, B&Q and even John Lewis are all open to haggling. It is sometimes known as price matching.

A discussion on Mr Lewis’ website speculated about whether haggling over legal fees is a ‘social no no’, but users said our profession should be treated like any other seller.

While legitimately shopping around for a lawyer, haggling may be considered fair, although you risk souring a business relationship before it has begun. However, ‘trying it on’ after the event is altogether different.

To avoid this, transparency from the outset is essential. We issue detailed information to clients explaining the legal process, prices (with no hidden costs) and, most importantly in case of litigation, the risks.

Of course, Mr Lewis is right with his assertion that clients or customers have nothing to lose, apart from perhaps goodwill or their pride. To achieve a level playing field, this must be addressed. Each side must have something to lose, such as complainant fees that can be refunded if successful. SJ