You still don't get it. A settled claim is what everyone but you calls a "WIN". By definition it was not therefore "hopeless".


Indeed and it is accelerating, kind of torpedoes the argument that fat cat lawyers are making easy millions doesn't it?


No it doesn't. You either are being deliberately obtuse, or else you know zero about the history of legal csts and the development of the taxation system (now assessment). Also, the system has been in place for so long and become so established largely because paying parties, usually insurers, seized on every chance to attack costs and delay payment. It does not reflect anything of the sort. It reflects that historically it has been difficult for parties to reach agreement as to costs. The fact that in the majority of cases they did eventually reach agreement and the fact that the majority of taxations were settled in favour of the receivinbg party debunks your argument.
'"

Who agrees the hourly rate? is it a fixed amount or can a firm charge what they like an hour? I would imagine the hourly rate of a partner at Clifford Chase or DLA will be somewhat higher than for Whittaker Firth in Bradford for the same work?

The client agrees the hourly rate. It most often comes into question when it comes to someone else paying (though clients have the same right to ask a court to asses any solicitors bill anyway). The Court Service publishes guideline rates for different grades of lawyers, and for different areas of the country, they are only guidelines but you'd do very well to get higher than guideline rates paid.

So the top firms will be subsidising cases as there is no way the fees they charge for non court stuff i.e. M&A work would be stomached by the courts? So DLA have charge less for work in Yorkshire than for the exact same work in London?