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
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
LexisNexis Legal Awards 2026—the winners!
The winners of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2026 have now been announced, marking another outstanding celebration of excellence, innovation, and impact across the legal profession
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll