On Monday I was presenting a seminar in Leicester in the afternoon. I took the train and then a taxi to the venue.
I got in the first taxi in the queue waiting outside the station. After I told the driver the destination, he said "How much do you want to pay?"
I was a little taken aback, I could see that he had a meter and as a good (read suspicious) lawyer I was wary of him asking this question.
He clarified his offer, "Do you want to pay fouteen pounds or I can turn on the meter?"
"Fourteen or Forty?" I asked dubiously.
"Fourteen -one - four".
I thought about this briefly. I knew from looking at Google maps that the hotel wasn't within walking distance, Google estimated a driving time of 15-20 minutes. The fixed offer worked out £1 per minute, if the time estimate was right. It didn't seem extortionate to me.
I don't really know what the fare should be from the station to the hotel. If I opted for the metered taxi ride, I could be charge double that sum. The traffic could be heavy, there might be roadworks. Or I could be charged half that sum, maybe.
Personally, I detest sitting in traffic watching the meter slowly changing. My blood pressure rises, by the time I get to the venue i feel as though i'm worn out. The choice was an easy one for me.
"I'll pay £14."
The taxi ride was much more pleasant as the issue of cost was resolved.
At the seminar I was chatting to some of the delegates during the break about fixed fees for financial remedy work. Having successfully introduced this regime at my previous firm over 12 months ago, I know that the clients prefer the option of a fixed fee.The firm also had a better cashflow as a result.
It s no brainer. So why are lawyers so reticent to introduce them in financial remedy work?