Trin­bag­o­ni­ans, whether we care to ad­mit it or not, are an emo­tion­al peo­ple. There are cer­tain things that can rile us up in a split sec­ond, but in the same tim­ing, there is some­thing that can ap­pease and soothe.

In every­day sit­u­a­tions, our abil­i­ty to be­come high­ly emo­tion­al may not cost us a sig­nif­i­cant sum. But there are times when that emo­tion can be so blind­ing that it costs us mon­ey, our men­tal and phys­i­cal health, and so much more.

I have nei­ther the ex­pe­ri­ence nor ex­per­tise to dis­cuss the emo­tion­al toll on our health or oth­er such well-be­ing. What I do know is the cost that emo­tion car­ries in le­gal mat­ters.

Let’s start with the le­gal fees. The prac­tice di­rec­tions used in our le­gal sys­tem sets out the guide­lines for the hourly rate of at­tor­neys, whether they are in­struct­ing at­tor­neys, ad­vo­cate or se­nior coun­sel/ king’s coun­sel. The guide­line is as fol­lows:

Band A - In­struct­ing un­der five years call $650 per hour

Ad­vo­cate un­der five years call $800 per hour

Band B - In­struct­ing over five years but un­der ten years call $1,000 per hour

Ad­vo­cat­ing over five years but un­der ten years call $1,200 per hour

Band C - In­struct­ing over ten years but un­der 20 years call $1,700 per hour

Ad­vo­cat­ing over ten years but un­der 20 years call $2,000 per hour

Band D - In­struct­ing over 20 years call $2,250 per hour

Ad­vo­cate over 20 years call $2,500 per hour

Band E - Se­nior Coun­sel/Queen’s Coun­sel $3,500 per hour

No­tably, these are just guide­lines. There are many at­tor­neys who are strict in their billing and as such, their bills can be sub­stan­tial, where­as there are those who may sim­ply set re­tain­ers for var­i­ous stages and their fees may well be more with­in range. What all at­tor­neys have in com­mon is that their le­gal fees will con­tin­ue to mount the fur­ther a mat­ter pro­gress­es.

In the sim­plest terms, the more you fight in court, the more fees your at­tor­neys will be able to charge.

Fees to be paid to your at­tor­ney are ex­pect­ed, so the thought of that doesn’t faze many peo­ple who wish to pro­ceed with a le­gal mat­ter.

But, how many peo­ple who are deal­ing with le­gal is­sues con­sid­er the cost of los­ing? In civ­il mat­ters, it is a com­mon ap­proach that the un­suc­cess­ful par­ty pays the suc­cess­ful par­ty’s le­gal costs.

This is not the hard and fast rule, as there is a dis­cre­tion re­served where­by a judge, af­ter hear­ing ar­gu­ments, can waive the costs in a mat­ter, or even de­cide that the suc­cess­ful par­ty should pay the un­suc­cess­ful par­ty’s costs due to some con­duct or some oth­er is­sue.

In le­gal mat­ters where de­c­la­ra­tions are sought con­cern­ing land, or there is no mon­e­tary val­ue to the mat­ter, le­gal costs are as­sessed as $14,000 to be paid in le­gal costs.

The guid­ance in cal­cu­lat­ing le­gal costs to be paid if un­suc­cess­ful is found in the Civ­il Pro­ceed­ings Rules. For ex­am­ple, should your claim be val­ued at $500,000 and you are un­suc­cess­ful, you can be or­dered to pay the suc­cess­ful par­ty’s le­gal fees, cal­cu­lat­ed in the sum of ap­prox­i­mate­ly $71,500.

Just imag­ine ar­gu­ing a mat­ter straight in­to tri­al, pay­ing your at­tor­ney, los­ing and now ow­ing the suc­cess­ful par­ty $500,000, to­geth­er with their le­gal fees at $71,500.

The cost grows and it grows quick­ly. There are many who rush to ap­peal, but ap­peal comes with fur­ther le­gal fees and fees to pay if un­suc­cess­ful.

There are so­lu­tions to this. There are many ways in which mat­ters can be me­di­at­ed, com­pro­mised, dis­cussed and re­solved with­out the par­ties hav­ing to car­ry the bur­den of sub­stan­tial fees.

Many peo­ple al­low emo­tion to guide their ac­tions in le­gal mat­ters. Count­less times I have heard the state­ment, ‘Well, I go let the judge de­cide’. The judge will de­cide not nec­es­sar­i­ly in your favour, but cer­tain­ly af­ter you have paid sub­stan­tial le­gal fees. Oth­ers al­low emo­tion and ego to set in and refuse to com­pro­mise be­cause they can­not be seen as los­ing, or they need to teach some­one a les­son. Those lessons al­so come at a high cost.

Peo­ple who are in­volved in prop­er­ty set­tle­ment are par­tic­u­lar­ly bit­ter, and why not? Their life is crum­bling in front their eyes. But con­tin­u­ous fight­ing and ar­gu­ing in court, us­ing mon­ey that can be bet­ter utilised for a fresh start, is non­sen­si­cal.

At the end of the day, every­one, be­sides the peo­ple be­ing paid to sup­ply guid­ance, los­es.

Many times, when in­volved in le­gal mat­ters, it is rec­om­mend­ed to at­tempt some form of me­di­a­tion or com­pro­mise. It may not be the out­come that you 100 per cent want­ed, but it might lead to out­comes that do less dam­age.

At­tor­neys are some­times ap­pre­hen­sive to sug­gest com­pro­mise, as clients see it as a lack of con­fi­dence in their case and de­cide their at­tor­ney is not tru­ly work­ing for them. No, com­pro­mis­ing is some­times the most prac­ti­cal ap­proach and al­lows the par­ties to con­trol the out­come and con­trol the ex­pens­es be­ing in­curred.

Some­times it is im­por­tant to be prac­ti­cal and not on­ly emo­tion­al.

Pavi­t­ra Ramharack is head of cham­bers at Pavi­t­ra Ramharack At­tor­neys at Law and can be reached at ramharack_pavi­t­ra@out­look.com