Barrister trio command £126,650 for one-day Tchenguiz appeal

  • Print
  • Comments (7)

Readers' comments (7)

  • The gigantic cost of exposing corruption?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • No wonder American clients don't like the second legal bill. But Duffy and Phelps' charges are comparatively modest -- Hollander QC's £85k is the bigger story.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • To refer to these fees as "hourly rates" is ridiculous. The fees for appearing at the hearing were were brief fees, not hourly fees. They inlcuded all the preparation time.

    That's not to say that Hollander's fee wasn't very very large. But The Lawyer ought to be above putting in a misleading headline like this to grab attention.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Shame that the Tchenguiz brothers don't have this much money to pay back the millions owed to creditors they borrowed via offshore trusts!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This reads like a propaganda headline from The Daily Mail. There is no analysis of the complexity of the issues or the work that was necessary in preparing for this appeal, but one can imagine the answer to that from the context of the case. The touchstone is proportionality and that cannot be assessed in a vacuum. If there is a genuine concern of "overcharging" then that is matter for the SFO (or it appears to be Grant Thornton in this case) to raise in the assessment of costs and/or the client to do so when negotiating fees. Next you will be publishing a story on whether Wayne Rooney deserves to be paid £300,000 a week...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Well it is rather amusing that a barrister will charge almost 40k for a 1.5 day hearing and then seek to have the other (successful) side's bill for an appeal reduced from 8k to 7.5k because the legal advisor is based outside London so not entitled to the full rate.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It is interesting that on the one hand solicitors' fees are criticised in their amount and for the manner in which they are charged, namely the hourly rate. Yet when it comes to barristers' fees the rates they charge are generally unquestioned. The problem is when it comes to assessing fees the judge or master will cut down the solicitors' fees but will make no comment on what the barristers have charged. This perpetuates escalating barristers' fees at a time when solicitors' fees are under pressure. Now when it comes to the clients' costs for an application hearing it'll be the barristers' fees that constitute the bulk of the expense not those of the solicitors. Something worth noting and this article is certainly edifying in highlighting that Point.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (7)