In the US, clients shop around on the basis of contingency fee percentages (page 9)
Paper reports how (small) sample of US lawyers admit to overbilling (page 19) – examples of how.
Report indicates that consumers generally shop around for legal advice (page 11).
Research suggests that only a minority of consumers shop around for legal advice (page 5). Further information about consumers tendency not to shop around on page 28.
Summaries results of 40 intervies by GFK, report states that:
Consumers tend to go with a provider reccomeded by a firm, do limited research about different providers, are loyal to previous providers. – page 5
Consumers look for an established provider based on a recommendation from someone they trust, evidence that the provider is experienced in legal practice, and evidence that a provider specialises in there required areas. Confirms service standards and price assessed after purchase.
Consumers see solictor as a indication of quality, and gives them confidence they are purchasing services from a reliable provider. Assume all professionals and staff are qualified to do thier job. – Page 6
Consumers expect all legal services to be regulated, and expected levels of protection similar to existing regulation. Page 7
Consmers unclear as to what represnts good value for money – Page 8
Discussion about whether claimants understand how their advice is being funded (page 29 – 30). And it might not be an issue if their insurer or trade union is funding the case (page 31). But the issue of additional expenses is contentious (page 32 – 38) – even VAT. Discussion about fee explanation (page – 39 – 43). And whether people were happy with final costs (page 43 – 46).
In other sectors (not law) some people who switch supplier end up paying more (page 11).