Client Asked to Stop Replying So Quickly as Transaction Falls Dangerously Under Budget

Pemberton Rook has asked a corporate client to reduce the speed and accuracy of its responses after an unusually well-managed transaction threatened to finish significantly below the firm's forecast hours.

The client provided complete documents, answered questions on the same day, confirmed instructions in writing and ensured that the correct people attended meetings. What would ordinarily be described as a model relationship has been escalated as a pricing concern.

“Our teams need a reasonable amount of friction to demonstrate value,” said the matter partner. “The client is removing the very obstacles our lawyers are highly skilled at overcoming.”

The firm's internal budget had allowed for conflicting instructions, a missing schedule, several incomplete data-room responses and a late intervention by an executive who had not followed previous discussions. None occurred.

After reviewing the position, the team issued a revised cooperation protocol.

Extract from proposed engagement schedule

• No more than two fully useful client responses per working week.
• Replies received within one hour may incur an acceleration surcharge.
• At least one requested attachment should be omitted and supplied after a polite reminder.
• One senior decision-maker should reserve the right to reopen agreed points near signing.
• Where possible, instructions should be delivered verbally and confirmed in a later email using different language.

The client asked whether behaving less effectively would make the transaction cheaper. The partner said the question failed to appreciate the sophistication of the firm's service model.

A pricing director suggested that the firm should simply charge for the result delivered rather than the hours it hoped to spend. Partners welcomed the theory but said the practice required careful consideration of its impact on the budget already approved.

The client's legal operations lead replied with a revised scope and a proposed fixed fee. The firm acknowledged receipt and scheduled an internal workshop on the unexpected challenges of innovative clients.

The transaction is now back on budget after two partners joined a call to explain why the cooperation protocol could not be finalised without a further call.