header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
07 October 2011 / Michael Zander KC
Issue: 7484 / Categories: Opinion , Costs
printer mail-detail

Zander on Moorhead on costs

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
rexfeatures_729662bp_4

Are lawyers breaking the rules on costs & transparency? Michael Zander QC

When it comes to lawyers’ charges, the basic idea is that the client will receive disinterested advice from the lawyer as to the options, including alternatives, that the client will understand the pros and cons and then give his informed consent to what is agreed to be the way forward. Empirical evidence shows, however, that this basic idea is false. Too often the lawyer’s advice is not disinterested; he does not spell out the alternatives; the client does not properly understand what is agreed; there is no informed consent.

This is the thesis advanced by Professor Richard Moorhead in a 25-page article in the current issue of Legal Studies, a quarterly journal published by the Society of Legal Scholars (R Moorhead Filthy lucre: lawyers’ fees and lawyers’ ethics—what is wrong with informed consent? (2011) 31 LS 345).

Professor Moorhead’s basis is three separate pieces of research in

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: The rise of the ‘ChatGPT client’ rattles the profession
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
NLJ this week: Surrogacy children caught in succession gap
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
NLJ this week: Do Mandelson and Mountbatten-Windsor meet the misconduct bar?
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
NLJ this week: Finality trumps freedom in arbitration showdown
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
NLJ this week: How sure is ‘sure’? Juries split on proof threshold
For decades, juries have been told to convict only if they are ‘sure’ of guilt. But what does that mean in practice? Writing in NLJ this week, Michael Zander KC, NLJ columnist and emeritus professor at LSE, argues the answer is alarmingly unclear
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll