Comparing written funding agreements without false precision
The lowest-looking percentage is not necessarily the smallest complete bill. Two funding proposals may cover different work, apply percentages to different amounts or handle insurance and expenses differently. This guide offers a comparison method for general England and Wales funding information. It does not interpret contracts, rank firms or recommend a funding arrangement. Separate professional advice is needed for individual decisions, and Scottish or Northern Irish agreements should be considered under their own jurisdiction’s rules rather than translated into this framework automatically.
Create a record for each dated version
Keep the full draft agreement and every document it incorporates, not just a screenshot of an advertised fee. Record the provider’s contracting name, the date, the named agreement type and the jurisdiction. If a proposal is revised, keep both versions clearly labelled so you can identify what changed. Do not combine a newer percentage with an older set of exclusions.
Use the same rows for every proposal: work included, work excluded, definition of success, basic fees, additional success fee or percentage payment, VAT treatment, insurance and expenses. Add a final row for unresolved questions. A visible unknown is more useful than a confident total assembled from incompatible assumptions.
Compare the work before the charge
Ask which stages are covered and whether preliminary advice, negotiations, proceedings, appeals or enforcement require separate instruction. Do not assume a general description includes every step. Ask how extra work would be authorised and priced. A proposal covering fewer stages may look cheaper while leaving important financial questions for later.
Write down what triggers payment and what counts as success. Include settlement and partial recovery in your questions. Ask what happens if you change your mind, change solicitor or the firm ends the agreement. The Law Society explains that costs may arise in some circumstances when an agreement ends before the case finishes.
- Are the work and stages genuinely comparable?
- Do the success definitions match?
- Are early-exit charges clearly described?
Request a common hypothetical illustration
Ask each provider to explain its calculation against the same clearly fictional figures. For a CFA, separate the fee uplift from any applicable restriction measured against damages. For a DBA, identify the recovery base and treatment of recovered costs. Do not ask an arithmetic worksheet to decide which legal mechanism applies. The professional needs to explain that first.
Show separate insurance premiums, disbursements and any other proposed deductions. Confirm whether applicable VAT is already included in each line. An expense listed in both an all-in percentage and separate costs would be counted twice. Ask for the total and the component figures in writing so that a reassuring headline cannot conceal a different calculation underneath.
Test what changes the answer
A single successful-outcome example is incomplete. Ask how the account changes on loss, a smaller recovery, early withdrawal or termination. Ask who bears costs that cannot be recovered from another party and what any insurance excludes. The SRA warns that no win no fee arrangements are not necessarily risk-free; record the conditions, not just the favourable scenario.
Use the homepage tool only after you understand your chosen base, rate and separate costs. It can expose arithmetic differences but cannot determine fairness, enforceability or individual liability. If the written explanation still leaves a material uncertainty, obtain independent advice rather than choosing on a speculative remainder. Keep the eventual answer alongside the specific draft it explains.
Sources and further reading
Editorial review: 6 November 2026. This guide is general preparation information, not a technical assessment or confirmed service offer.