Short Selling Gross Sales as a Signal?, page-107

No, I am not.

The problem with your arguments is that they are all over the place. You go from all lawyers charge up front to assuming that the, "no win no fee" actually means "no win no fee"!

'No win no fee' is a term used to induce people with negligence claims to walk through the door. Do you think a firm would actually spend hours doing work on the assumption they might get nothing for their efforts?

Here's how it goes (generally).

1. Client walks in and wants to discuss their claim - no fee.
2. Lawyer assesses the claim and makes a judgement about what the value of the claim might be. If it has no chance then you tell the client. Lawyer has a good idea of the probable outcome.
3. If you have a reasonable belief that the claim might go be successful, then you discuss the options with the client.
4. Many have no funds for upfront costs or they are impecunious. In any event, most will jump at the chance to not pay now but have a greater slice taken out of their settlement at a later date. Upfront payment reduces the exposure of the firm so the costs to the client might be less. If they have to wait until settlement the lawyers share of the eventual settlement will be greater.

For goodness sakes - if you want to discuss things you should spend some time researching the topics that you would like to discuss.

Here's an idea. Have a chat to one of your QC mates about charging fees and the administrations of trust accounts

That's enough from me. Now do some work of your own.

As for your, "... some of my friends are QC's and barristers" etc. that doesn't wash. It is a child's argument.

I have an acquaintance that flies A380 aircraft - and yet I do not know a thing about flight dynamics.