Home > How Your Case Is Managed > Aligned Incentives and Cost ControlAligned Incentives and Cost Control
How structural fee design affects litigation behaviour.
Published: 7 July 2024 | Reviewed: 3 September 2026
(3-minute read)The Incentive Question in Litigation
In most civil litigation, lawyers are remunerated either:
on an hourly basis, or
under conditional cost agreements tied to outcomes.
Under hourly structures, revenue increases as work increases.
When settlement work and trial preparation are performed within the same retainer, financial incentives and early resolution do not always point in the same direction.
This is not a question of integrity.
It is a question of structure.
Clean Law was designed to separate these incentives so that cost control does not depend on personal restraint.
Related public guide
Clients often assume cost disclosure means cost control.
But being told is not the same as being able to stop.
Read: Why cost disclosure does not always give control
Clean Law’s Structural Incentive Design
Clean Law operates through three mechanisms:
Fixed-fee settlement and escrow oversight
Separation between settlement and trial advocacy
A results-based bonus linked only to avoided trial costs
Each mechanism affects behaviour in a specific way.
Alignment One: Fixed-Fee Escrow Oversight
Clean Law charges a fixed fee for settlement strategy, timing control, and escrow supervision.
Because that fee does not increase merely because a matter extends:
delay does not increase Clean Law’s settlement and oversight fee
unnecessary scope expansion does not increase that fee
escalation to contested court work does not create trial-fee revenue for Clean Law
Escrow requires client approval before funds are released and before new stages begin.
This places cost authority with the client rather than within the billing structure.
(See Escrow and Switching Flexibility for operational detail.)
Alignment Two: Separation of Roles
Clean Law does not conduct contested hearings, draft pleadings for filing, or brief counsel in substantive litigation.
Those functions are performed by the client’s separately retained courtroom lawyer.
If a matter proceeds to trial, the trial lawyer earns the trial fees.
Clean Law does not.
This structural separation removes Clean Law’s financial incentive to recommend litigation for trial-fee revenue.
(See Advocacy Boundaries & Independence Policy for scope limits.)
Alignment Three: Results-Based Bonus Linked to Avoided Trial Costs
Clean Law earns a results-based bonus only when early settlement demonstrably avoids projected trial costs.
The bonus is calculated by reference to avoided trial expenditure identified under the agreed fee structure. It is not calculated as a percentage of damages or recovery.
If no trial costs are avoided, no bonus applies.
This means:
early resolution aligns with our remuneration
delay does not increase our fee
escalation does not increase our fee
In practical terms: if the matter expands without necessity, our workload increases while our fee remains fixed.
Why These Mechanisms Matter
Taken together, these safeguards mean:
settlement incentives and remuneration move in the same direction
trial advocacy remains independent
early trial preparation cannot begin without client approval
funds remain visible and controlled through escrow
mobility between courtroom lawyers remains intact
Cost safety therefore arises from structure, not assurance.
Bottom Line
Two-lawyer representation may reduce avoidable overlap where settlement work and trial preparation would otherwise blur.
The objective is not to criticise existing legal-service structures. It is to provide a staged arrangement where:
delay does not increase Clean Law’s settlement and oversight fee
contested court work does not create trial-fee revenue for Clean Law
early resolution can align with both client and firm interests
This does not make litigation cheap, simple or risk-free. It is designed to make incentives, roles and funding decisions clearer before further work is approved.
By Nicky Wang
Principal Solicitor