- Civil society group puts forward policy proposal
- Urges fee transparency, protection for clients obtaining legal services
- A legal costs tribunal, national legal fees code proposed
The People’s Power Against Bribery, Corruption and Waste (PPABCW) organisation has submitted a policy proposal to the President, the Justice Minister and other relevant authorities calling for a comprehensive legal framework to regulate legal fees, improve fee transparency and strengthen protections for clients using legal services.
The proposal, titled “Regulating Legal Fees and Protecting Clients: A Framework for Transparency, Fairness and Access to Justice in Sri Lanka”, which was shared with The Daily Morning by the organisation's President Kamantha Thushara, calls for the introduction of a Legal Fees Regulation Act and supporting regulations governing the transparency of legal fees and client protection.
They have claimed that the cost of legal services has become a major practical barrier to accessing justice, with clients often entering into legal engagements without clear information about fees and facing unpredictable costs as cases continue.
The proposal notes that the problem is aggravated by delays in the courts, pointing out that more than 1.13 million cases were pending before courts as at February 2025. It claims that prolonged litigation can increase fees, court appearances and other expenses, leaving clients with escalating financial commitments without adequate information about the costs that they are likely to incur.
Thushara said that the proposed framework is not intended to impose broad price controls on lawyers. Instead, he said, it proposes greater transparency before a lawyer accepts instructions, accountability during the engagement, an independent review of disputed fees, the protection of the client’s money and better information on market rates.
Among the main recommendations made by the organisation are mandatory written fee disclosures before accepting instructions, written engagement agreements for legal services costing more than Rs 50,000, itemised billing and official receipts, the annual publication of advisory fee ranges for routine legal services, limited fixed fees for certain standardised services, the establishment of an independent legal costs tribunal, mandatory client trust accounts with annual audits, digital billing and a national legal fees portal, an independent national legal fees commission to oversee the framework, regulated success fees for approved categories and litigation cost estimates faced by clients for claims exceeding Rs 5 million.
The proposal recommends that every attorney-at-law provide a written fee disclosure statement setting out the scope of the work, the estimated fees, court expenses, taxes, disbursements, circumstances in which costs may increase, payment arrangements and a refund policy before accepting instructions.
It also proposes written agreements for engagements above Rs 50,000, with details of the services, the basis of the fee, billing intervals, client responsibilities, termination rights and dispute resolution.
It further calls for invoices to specify the work carried out, the dates, the applicable rates, the court and filing fees, travel costs, taxes and other charges, instead of using general descriptions such as “professional services”.
The proposal also seeks to prohibit practices such as demanding blank cheques, refusing receipts and accepting cash without an official receipt.
For routine services, it recommends the annual publication of advisory fee ranges for areas such as conveyancing, probate, company incorporation, affidavits, leases, debt recovery, matrimonial and testamentary matteRs The proposed ranges would serve as a reference for clients rather than general fee caps, with the proposal allowing lawyers to charge different fees where the circumstances justify them.
It also proposes limited maximum fees for highly standardised routine services such as simple affidavits, standard attestations and prescribed-form documents, with such fees to be reviewed periodically.
A key part of the proposal is the creation of a tribunal to deal with disputed legal fees. The proposed tribunal would be chaired by a retired Supreme Court or Court of Appeal Judge and include a senior attorney, a chartered accountant, a consumer affairs representative and a public representative. It would have the power to review disputed fees, reduce excessive charges, order refunds, suspend recovery in appropriate cases and refer possible professional misconduct to the relevant disciplinary authority.
The proposal also calls for money held on behalf of clients to be kept separate from lawyers’ operational funds in designated client trust accounts, with annual audits and certification.
It further proposes electronic billing for larger firms and, at a later stage, a portal through which clients could obtain quotations, access bills and payment records, verify fees and submit complaints.
The organisation has also recommended the establishment of a commission to publish the legal fees code and guideline schedules, monitor the legal services market, investigate patterns of excessive charging, maintain statistics, educate the public and submit annual reports to Parliament.
The proposal also includes regulated success fees for certain approved categories of cases and estimated litigation budgets for claims above Rs 5 million.
The organisation has stressed that legal fee reform alone would not resolve the wider cost of accessing justice and has proposed complementary measures including continued court digitalisation, the expansion of Legal Aid Commission funding and coverage, the greater encouragement of pro bono legal services, and the modernisation of existing party-and-party costs scales.
Overall, the proposal recommends that the Justice Ministry appoint a multi-stakeholder drafting committee, conduct a structured public consultation and introduce the proposed reforms in phases over 24 months, beginning with fee transparency requirements and eventually moving towards the proposed digital fee portal.