Hidden Risks in the Traditional Model

Published: 11 July 2024 | Reviewed: 3 December 2025
(2-minute read)

The danger most Australians never see

In the traditional model, your case can begin paying for trial long before you have decided whether to fight.

Not because anyone intends it.
Not because anyone acts improperly.
But because one role controls two paths, settlement and trial, and the moment those paths blur, the client loses visibility.

This is where structural risk begins.

The moment visibility disappears

When one lawyer handles everything, the two paths merge into a single stream of activity.

Inside that merged role:

• work for early resolution
  and

• work that prepares a matter for court

look identical to clients.

You cannot see which lane you are paying for, or whether you ever needed it.

That blindness is the hidden risk.

How blended roles quietly inflate cost

Under the traditional structure, several invisible forces start working against you:

• timing is set by the lawyer, not by the lane your matter actually needs

• early trial steps can begin “in the background”, without you realising

• scope expands before settlement concludes

• each new step gains its own momentum

• costs shift from “advice” to “preparation” without a clear line

Nothing improper, just a structure where the default direction is forward, not “pause” or “settle first”.

The drift feels natural.
The bill does not.

Why low starting fees hide high eventual costs

Many clients choose the firm offering the lowest early fee.

The hidden problem:

A low fee at the beginning says nothing about where the case is heading.

Small openings often mask the structural drift that follows:

• early trial strategy built into “initial review”

• procedural steps planned before negotiations finish

• internal momentum that favours preparing rather than resolving

• reactive advice once the case has already started moving

By the time clients realise what is happening, they are partway into a path they never chose.

The real reason switching lawyers is so difficult

Most Australians believe switching becomes hard because of conflict, personality, or poor communication.

The truth is simpler and structural:

Once trial preparation begins inside a blended role, your file becomes leverage.

What follows is predictable:

• money you thought was “for the whole case” has already been used

• the file cannot move until costs are settled

• new lawyers must review work you already paid for

• you face a choice between “stay” or “pay again”

This is not a client failure.
It is not a lawyer failure.
It is the inevitable outcome of a single-lane structure.

The structural trap clients feel, but can’t name

Most Australians describe the same experience:

“It all felt reasonable at the start… then suddenly everything became complicated and expensive.”

What they are describing, without the language for it, is structural drift:

• one role doing two types of work

• timing they cannot see

• momentum they cannot stop

• costs they cannot reverse

This page exists to name the problem so you can see it before it begins.

How Clean Law avoids these hidden traps

Clean Law was built so these structural problems never begin.

• two fully separate lanes — settlement vs trial

• you fund only the path your matter takes

• escrow makes timing, scope, and stages visible

• no referral fees, no panels, no shared profits

• ACNC governance + annual Law Society trust-account audits

These safeguards ensure clarity, authority, and timing remain with you, where they belong.

Truths

Two lawyers often cost less than one, because you fund one path, not both.
Aligned incentives create structural cost safety.
If YOU save, WE win; if your case DRAGS, we lose.
Built to stop cost spiral before it gets a chance.

Understand the Risks through Real Court Examples

When Structure Fails (Hartnett case)
When a $30k debt becomes nearly $300k in fees

When Professional Confidence Hides Risk: The Banksia Scandal (systemic misconduct)
How senior barristers and funders nearly diverted $64 million.

By Nicky Wang
Principal Solicitor
Legal Liaison Ltd (trading as Clean Law)
Prepared in accordance with public-interest governance,
annual Law Society trust-account audits, and ACNC-reported standards.

Disclaimer: This page is intended to provide general information only and is not legal advice. The contents may not reflect the most current legal developments and do not take into account your individual circumstances. You should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of this information without obtaining legal advice tailored to your situation.