A lawyer only offers a contingency fee agreement if the agreed fee rate is worth it with the estimate of the chances of success. As a general rule, this means that the levy must be such that in the event of a gain, only part of the royalty is collected by the other party and that the balance of the royalty does come from the damage (compensation) that the customer receives. The court will only order the other party to pay a normal and reasonable fee, but the lawyer will likely charge a higher tax than the normal fee to reflect the risk of not being paid at all if the case is lost: the difference between the tax collected and the tax collected results from damages and interest. Under agreements like this, many people have been able to take their cases to court, all that is necessary is for the client to buy insurance against the loss of a case. If this requirement is met, it is unlikely that the case will not be handled by a lawyer. The solicitor will probably work harder on behalf of clients because he has invested interest. This will result in increased competition between solicitors and, as a result, the customer will benefit from better service. These registers form the basis for the court to decide on the adequacy of royalties. The temptation for counsel to act inappropriately is less than if the agreement were a conditional agreement that would be favourable to the client.
On the other hand, if the lawyer`s client has no fortune, a conditional fee agreement gives only a legal form to the practical reality – the lawyer is paid only if the client wins. Nevertheless, it is accepted as commendable for lawyers to act in such circumstances. There is nothing indecent to agree in the lawyer to act for the client for his normal expenses, while he is in mind, for reasons of friendship or want to promote the future work of that client, not pay his fees if the client should lose. It seems strange that an open contractual statement of what is safe in the mind of a lawyer, an agreement that would have been applicable, should render unenforceable if the lawyer had not shared his thoughts with his client and promised not to change his mind.