How French Lawyers Set Their Fees

A Civil Law Perspective Compared with Common Law Fee Structures

For clients trained in, or accustomed to, common law systems, legal fees are often perceived as a matter of market practice rather than legal architecture. Hourly rates, contingency fees, conditional fee arrangements or blended billing structures are generally understood as commercial tools, shaped primarily by competition, reputation and judicial oversight ex post. When such clients first engage a French lawyer, they are frequently surprised to discover that the determination of legal fees in France is not merely a matter of negotiation or professional habit, but is instead anchored in a precise statutory and ethical framework.

This surprise is not accidental. The French system of lawyers’ fees reflects a civil law conception of the legal profession, in which the lawyer is neither a simple service provider nor an entrepreneur freely pricing a commodity, but a regulated professional exercising an independent function within the justice system. The rules governing fees are therefore inseparable from the legal status of the lawyer, the role of professional ethics and the contractual structure of the lawyer–client relationship.

Understanding how a French lawyer sets his or her fees requires an analysis of the legal texts that govern the profession, the role of the Bar and its regulatory bodies, and the way in which fee disputes are reviewed. Only then can a meaningful comparison be drawn with common law jurisdictions such as England and Wales or the United States, where fee structures follow a fundamentally different logic.

PART I – THE FRENCH MODEL: STATUTORY FREEDOM OF FEES WITHIN A REGULATED PROFESSION

A. The Legal Basis of Lawyers’ Fees in France

The cornerstone of the French system is Article 10 of Law No. 71-1130 of 31 December 1971 regulating certain judicial and legal professions. This provision, which has been amended several times but whose core principle remains unchanged, states that lawyers’ fees are freely determined by agreement between the lawyer and the client. This legislative choice is decisive: French law deliberately rejects the existence of binding fee schedules, minimum tariffs or maximum caps imposed by the State.

However, the same article immediately qualifies this freedom by requiring that fees be set in accordance with specific criteria, including the difficulty of the case, the time devoted to it, the nature of the legal work performed, the importance of the interests at stake, the client’s financial situation and the lawyer’s experience, reputation and specialisation. These criteria are not merely indicative. They constitute the legal standard against which fees may be reviewed in the event of a dispute.

This statutory framework reveals the underlying philosophy of the French system. Freedom of fees is not conceived as a market-driven liberty detached from legal control, but as a contractual freedom exercised within a normative environment. The lawyer is free to propose a fee, but remains accountable for its proportionality and justification.

Unlike common law jurisdictions, French law does not recognise the concept of generally accepted or officially published hourly rates. While hourly billing is common in practice, the hourly rate itself is not regulated, standardised or endorsed by the profession. Its legitimacy derives exclusively from the agreement reached with the client and from its consistency with the statutory criteria laid down by Article 10.

This approach contrasts sharply with the expectations of common law clients, who are accustomed to benchmarking rates against market standards, peer firms or published surveys. In France, the emphasis is placed less on comparability and more on contractual clarity and ethical responsibility.

B. The Mandatory Fee Agreement and Ethical Oversight

The civil law logic of the French system is further reinforced by the requirement of a written fee agreement, known as a convention d’honoraires. This requirement, introduced by legislative and regulatory reforms in the 2010s and reflected in the Règlement Intérieur National of the legal profession, obliges lawyers to formalise their fee arrangements in writing in almost all matters.

The purpose of the fee agreement is not merely evidentiary. It is intended to ensure informed consent on the part of the client and to structure the lawyer–client relationship as a legally defined contractual engagement. The agreement must specify the scope of the lawyer’s mission, the method of calculating fees and, where applicable, the existence and conditions of a success fee.

French law authorises a variety of fee structures, including hourly billing, fixed fees and mixed arrangements combining a base fee with a success-related component. However, it strictly prohibits pure contingency fees, known as pactes de quota litis, whereby the lawyer’s remuneration would consist solely of a percentage of the outcome. This prohibition, which is rooted in both statutory law and long-standing jurisprudence, reflects a conception of the lawyer as an independent adviser whose remuneration must not depend exclusively on the success of litigation.

The ethical dimension of fee-setting is further emphasised by the professional rules contained in the Règlement Intérieur National. Lawyers are bound by duties of transparency, moderation and loyalty towards their clients. Excessive or manifestly disproportionate fees may constitute a disciplinary offence, even where the client initially agreed to them. The lawyer’s independence is therefore inseparable from a heightened level of ethical accountability.

PART II – COMPARISON WITH COMMON LAW SYSTEMS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

A. Common Law Fee Structures: Market Logic and Judicial Oversight

In common law jurisdictions, the determination of legal fees follows a markedly different trajectory. In England and Wales, solicitors’ fees are shaped primarily by market practice and professional custom, subject to regulatory requirements concerning transparency and fairness. Conditional fee agreements and damages-based agreements are permitted under statutory conditions, and the assessment of costs in litigation is subject to judicial scrutiny under the Civil Procedure Rules.

The logic here is fundamentally different from that of French law. While professional ethics and regulatory oversight certainly exist, the legitimacy of a fee is largely derived from market acceptance and from the parties’ freedom to contract. Judicial intervention typically occurs ex post, in the context of cost recovery or allegations of abuse, rather than as part of a specialised professional review mechanism.

The divergence is even more pronounced in the United States, where fee arrangements are governed primarily by state ethical rules and case law. Contingency fees are widely accepted in litigation, particularly in personal injury and class action matters, and are perceived as a means of facilitating access to justice. The lawyer is often viewed as an economic actor operating in a competitive market, with pricing strategies reflecting positioning, reputation and risk allocation.

From a French perspective, these common law approaches may appear to blur the boundary between legal representation and commercial enterprise. Conversely, common law practitioners may view the French system as overly formalised and insufficiently responsive to market dynamics.

B. Structural Differences and Their Consequences for International Clients

The contrast between the French and common law systems is not merely technical. It reflects two distinct legal cultures. The French model is contract-centred and statute-based, emphasising legal certainty, ethical oversight and institutional control through the Bar and its President, the Bâtonnier. Fee disputes are first examined by the Bâtonnier, who exercises a specialised jurisdiction to assess whether the fees charged comply with statutory and ethical standards. This mechanism, which combines professional expertise with quasi-judicial authority, has no real equivalent in common law jurisdictions.

In common law systems, fee disputes are typically resolved through ordinary courts or arbitration, applying general principles of contract law. The absence of a specialised professional authority comparable to the Bâtonnier reflects a different allocation of regulatory functions.

For common law clients engaging French lawyers, these structural differences have concrete implications. Expectations based on market rates or contingency-based remuneration may not align with French legal constraints. The insistence on a detailed written fee agreement should not be perceived as rigidity, but as a legal necessity rooted in civil law tradition. Similarly, the prohibition of pure contingency fees is not a matter of professional conservatism, but a reflection of the legal status of the lawyer in France.

Conclusion

The manner in which French lawyers set their fees cannot be understood without reference to the civil law foundations of the profession. Freedom of fees exists, but it is a freedom framed by statute, professional ethics and institutional oversight. This model stands in clear contrast to common law systems, where fee structures are shaped primarily by market forces and judicial review.

For international clients, particularly those from common law jurisdictions, the key to avoiding misunderstandings lies not in comparing hourly rates or billing practices in isolation, but in appreciating the legal philosophy that underpins the French approach. Once this philosophy is understood, the French system reveals itself not as opaque or inflexible, but as coherent, predictable and legally secure.