Key Questions to Ask a Personal Injury Lawyer in Queensland

The important questions to ask a personal injury lawyer in a first consultation establish the lawyer's credentials, the merits and value of the claim, the costs of running the matter, and how the file will be handled day-to-day. The credentials questions cover Queensland Law Society Accredited Specialist accreditation, post-admission practice in personal injury law, recent caseload, outcomes on comparable matters, case acceptance criteria, and personal conduct of the file. The fee structure questions cover No Win No Fee retainers (also known as a conditional cost agreement, conditional fee agreement, speculative fee arrangement, or No Win No Pay), the uplift fee, care and consideration loadings, fee timing across claim stages, written cost estimates, and the cooling-off period. The remaining categories cover communication cadence, viability and prospects, statutory time limits, heads of damage, settlement range, evidence and timeframe, settlement venue at compulsory conference or trial, negotiation posture against the relevant insurer, financial exposure on a failed claim, failed-claim disbursements, adverse costs orders at trial, change of lawyer, disbursement funding, the litigation loan model, GST treatment of disbursements, voluntary internal caps below the 50/50 statutory cap, post-2022 treatment of litigation loan interest, and the section 308 cost disclosure.

A claimant with limited consultation time should prioritise the five questions that span credentials, fee mechanics, file handling, and worst-case exposure. 

The five most important questions to ask a personal injury lawyer are as follows.

• "Are you a Queensland Law Society Accredited Specialist in Personal Injury Law?"
• "Is this a true No Win No Fee arrangement, and how are disbursements funded if the claim fails?"
• "What uplift fee do you charge?"
• "Will you personally have conduct of my file?"
• "What is my financial exposure if the claim is unsuccessful?"

The full set of 32 questions outlined below give a complete summary of all information required before starting a personal injury claiml with a law firm. Most of these questions should be directly verifiable in the costs agreement the firm provides, in the section 308 cost disclosure, and on the public records of the Queensland Law Society and the Legal Services Commission. Combined answers identify whether the firm runs a transparent, claimant-protective fee structure under the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) or relies on the complexity of the costs agreement to capture marginal revenue.

Full list of questions to ask a personal injury lawyer in Queensland

Questions about experience and accreditation

• "Are you a Queensland Law Society Accredited Specialist in Personal Injury Law?"
• "How many years of post-admission practice do you have in personal injury law specifically?"
• "How many personal injury matters have you personally handled in the past 12 months?"
• "What outcomes have you achieved in matters similar to mine?"
• "How do you decide which cases to take on?"
• "Will you personally have conduct of my file?"

Questions about fee structure

• "Is this a true No Win No Fee arrangement?"
• "What uplift fee do you charge?"
• "Do you charge any additional percentage fees, such as 'care and consideration'?"
• "Do your fees change depending on how or when the claim resolves?"
• "Will you give me a written estimate of total costs before I sign?"
• "Is there a cooling-off period after I sign the costs agreement?"

Questions about communication

• "Who will be my main point of contact?"
• "How often will I receive updates, and how will complex decisions be explained to me?"
• "Who responds when the lead lawyer is unavailable?"

Questions about the claim process

• "Do I have a viable claim, and what are the prospects?"
• "What time limits apply to my claim?"
• "What heads of damage am I able to claim?"
• "What is a realistic settlement range based on similar matters you have handled?"
• "What evidence will be needed?"
• "What is the likely timeframe from start to settlement?"

Questions about resolution strategy

• "Is my claim likely to settle at compulsory conference or proceed to trial?"
• "What is your approach to negotiating with insurers?"

Questions about worst-case scenarios

• "What is my financial exposure if the claim is unsuccessful?"
• "What happens to disbursements already incurred if the claim fails?"
• "What happens if I lose at trial?"
• "What happens if I want to change lawyers during my claim?"

Cost and agreement questions most claimants don't think to ask

• "Do you carry disbursements yourself, or use a litigation loan?"
• "Do you charge GST on disbursements?"
• "Is there a cap on professional fees in your costs agreement below the 50/50 statutory cap?"
• "How is interest on a litigation loan treated within the 50/50 cap?"
• "What is included in the section 308 cost disclosure I'll receive?"

More information on each of these questions and the reasoning behind them is outlined in detail below.

Questions about experience and accreditation

Questions about experience and accreditation establish the lawyer's credentials, depth of practice in personal injury law specifically, and personal capacity to handle the claim. The answers identify whether the lawyer is a generalist with occasional personal injury work, a junior practitioner still building toward specialty competence, or a dedicated personal injury practitioner with demonstrated depth across the full range of matters. A claimant with a serious or complex matter is best served by a lawyer whose practice is substantially or exclusively dedicated to personal injury law.

Six questions cover the full ground in the experience and accreditation category. Each question produces a direct, verifiable answer from a transparent personal injury lawyer. Cross-checking those answers against the firm's website, the Queensland Law Society register of Accredited Specialists, and the lawyer's published practice profile takes minutes and is worth the time. The work of a first consultation with a personal injury lawyer benefits from comparing two or three firms before signing a costs agreement, and the questions in this category are designed to make that comparison meaningful.

"Are you a Queensland Law Society Accredited Specialist in Personal Injury Law?"

The accreditation question asks whether the lawyer holds the formal Queensland Law Society credential demonstrating advanced competence in personal injury law. The accreditation is held by a small minority of practising solicitors in Queensland and is the most reliable single credential a claimant can verify before signing a costs agreement. The Queensland Law Society maintains a public register of current Accredited Specialists by area of law.

The accreditation process for a Queensland Law Society Accredited Specialist requires several years of post-admission practice in the specialty area, peer review, written examinations, and ongoing continuing professional development to maintain. A solicitor cannot self-describe as a specialist in Queensland without holding the formal accreditation, and the Queensland Law Society register of Accredited Specialists is the public record where current credentials can be verified. Firms that market themselves as "specialists" without naming an Accredited Specialist on the file are using the term loosely.

A strong answer to the accreditation question names the Accredited Specialist on the firm's roster, confirms whether that specialist will have personal conduct of the file or supervise it, and offers to verify the credential through the public register. An answer that conflates "we specialise in personal injury" with formal accreditation is a red flag, because the two are different things and a competent firm will draw the distinction without prompting.

"How many years of post-admission practice do you have in personal injury law specifically?"

What this question is asking is how long the lawyer has practised personal injury law as a substantial proportion of their caseload, not total years admitted to the legal profession. A lawyer admitted for fifteen years who has practised personal injury law for three of them has three years of relevant experience, not fifteen. Personal injury law in Queensland involves a distinct statutory framework, distinct insurer dynamics, and distinct procedural requirements that are not transferable from general litigation, family law, or commercial practice.

Post-admission years in personal injury law matter because the area has a learning curve that does not flatten quickly. A lawyer in their first three years of personal injury practice will be competent to handle Compulsory Third Party (CTP) and workers' compensation matters under supervision but should not be the lead lawyer on a complex medical negligence claim, a catastrophic motor vehicle accident, or a contested liability matter. A lawyer with seven or more years of dedicated personal injury practice has typically run matters across the full range of statutory schemes and to compulsory conference at minimum.

Look for an answer that gives a specific number of years in personal injury law specifically, identifies the schemes the lawyer has run matters under (CTP, WorkCover, public liability, medical negligence, total and permanent disability), and notes whether the lawyer has run matters to compulsory conference and to trial. By contrast, a generalised reference to "twenty years of legal experience" without breaking down the personal injury proportion is evasive and warrants a direct follow-up.

"How many personal injury matters have you personally handled in the past 12 months?"

The recent caseload question asks for the lawyer's actual number of active personal injury matters in the past 12 months, which is a more reliable indicator of current competence than historical experience or aggregate firm statistics. A lawyer who has personally run twenty to forty active personal injury matters in the past twelve months has fresh familiarity with current insurer behaviour, current case law, and current procedural practice. A lawyer who has run two or three personal injury matters as a sideline to other work has stale knowledge of a fast-moving area.

Active caseload also indicates whether the lawyer has the capacity to take on a new matter without delay. Personal injury matters move on statutory and pre-court timetables that do not accommodate a lawyer who is overloaded. A reasonable working caseload for an experienced personal injury solicitor in Queensland sits in the range of forty to eighty active matters at any one time, depending on complexity. Significantly above that range raises questions about capacity to give each matter proper attention.

A direct answer gives a specific recent caseload figure, identifies the mix of matter types, and confirms the lawyer has capacity to take on the new claim. A pivot to firm-wide statistics ("our firm handles thousands of personal injury matters") sidesteps the question, because firm-wide volume does not tell the claimant anything about the individual lawyer's recent practice.

"What outcomes have you achieved in matters similar to mine?"

Outcomes on comparable claims are the most direct evidence of competence in matters similar to the claimant's own. A lawyer's record across comparable claims indicates how the matter is likely to be run, what settlement range is realistic, and how the firm performs against the relevant insurer. Personal injury law is highly pattern-based, and a lawyer who has resolved twenty whiplash CTP claims has internalised settlement ranges and insurer tactics that a generalist litigator has not.

Outcome discussion in the first consultation is necessarily anonymised. A solicitor cannot identify former clients or disclose confidential settlement figures, but can speak in general terms about settlement ranges, the heads of damage typically recovered, and how the firm has performed against the relevant insurer in matters of similar type. The discussion should orient the claimant on what a realistic outcome looks like, rather than promising a specific figure.

A capable lawyer references specific matter types similar to the claimant's claim, gives a realistic settlement range based on actual recent outcomes, and identifies the heads of damage typically claimed. A guarantee of a specific dollar figure at a first consultation is a serious red flag, because settlement values depend on evidence the lawyer has not yet seen, and any solicitor making such a guarantee is either inexperienced or unethical.

"How do you decide which cases to take on?"

Behind this question is whether the firm screens matters for prospects of success or accepts every claim that walks through the door. Section 345 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) requires a solicitor to have a reasonable belief that a claim has reasonable prospects of success before commencing or continuing it. A firm that accepts every matter without proper screening is either non-compliant with the reasonable prospects requirement or is using the claimant's matter as a volume-business filler.

Selectivity in case acceptance also matters because a firm that runs a high volume of weak claims will resolve those claims at low settlement values to clear the file quickly. The same fee structure and the same lawyer can produce materially different outcomes depending on whether the firm is committed to the claim or treating it as a low-priority file.

What you want to hear is a screening process that includes review of medical evidence, assessment of liability, calculation of likely heads of damage, and an honest discussion of weaknesses and prospects. The lawyer should be willing to decline a matter that lacks prospects rather than running it for the small chance of a poor settlement. A firm that suggests it takes "every personal injury matter that comes in" should prompt a follow-up about how the firm screens for the reasonable prospects requirement under section 345.

"Will you personally have conduct of my file?"

Personal conduct of the file means the lawyer the claimant meets in the consultation will be the lawyer running the matter day-to-day. The day-to-day work includes drafting the notice of claim, conducting the compulsory conference, and dealing with the insurer. Many firms operate a "rainmaker" model in which a senior solicitor conducts the consultation and signs up the matter, then passes it to a junior lawyer or paralegal for execution. The model is not inherently improper, but the claimant is entitled to know which lawyer is actually running the file and what level of supervision applies.

The level of personal conduct on a personal injury file affects communication quality, strategic depth, and responsiveness. A senior lawyer with personal conduct will spot issues earlier, negotiate more effectively, and make decisions faster than a junior lawyer following a checklist with periodic supervision. A claim run primarily by a paralegal under a senior lawyer's name will often resolve at a lower settlement value because the paralegal lacks the experience to identify the full claim value or push back on insurer tactics.

A direct answer to this question is unambiguous: the lawyer either confirms personal conduct, identifies the lawyer who will have day-to-day conduct, or describes a hybrid model in which a senior lawyer supervises a junior with defined review points. By contrast, an answer that obscures the question, such as "our team will look after you," is evasive and warrants a follow-up about which named lawyer will be the day-to-day point of contact and who reviews their work.

Questions about fee structure

Questions about fee structure establish the financial mechanics of the retainer, the total cost the claimant will pay, and the worst-case financial exposure if the claim fails. The answers to these questions are directly verifiable in the costs agreement the firm provides before the claimant signs, and combined answers identify whether the firm runs a client-protective fee structure or a structure that maximises firm revenue at the claimant's expense. Personal injury law in Queensland is governed by the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), which sets statutory limits on what a firm can charge, and a transparent firm will explain its fee structure in plain language by reference to those limits.

Six questions cover the full ground in the fee structure category. Each question maps to a specific provision of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) and to a standard term in a Queensland personal injury costs agreement. The broader question of how much a personal injury lawyer costs in Queensland sits behind the fee structure category, and the questions in this category are designed to surface the variables that produce the difference between a low-cost firm and a high-cost firm under the same statutory regime.

"Is this a true No Win No Fee arrangement?"

The No Win No Fee question asks whether the claimant pays nothing in professional fees if the claim is unsuccessful, with no upfront costs and no ongoing invoices during the claim. A true No Win No Fee arrangement in Queensland is a conditional cost agreement under section 323 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), in which the lawyer's professional fees are payable only if the claim succeeds. The arrangement is also known as a conditional cost agreement, conditional fee agreement, speculative fee arrangement, or No Win No Pay.

The mechanics of these arrangements are not uniform across firms. Some firms carry the full risk, paying disbursements out of firm funds and charging the claimant nothing if the claim fails. Other firms describe their arrangement as No Win No Fee but require the claimant to fund disbursements personally or via a third-party litigation loan, which creates a real financial exposure if the claim is unsuccessful. The phrase "No Win No Fee" in marketing material does not, on its own, tell the claimant which model the firm runs.

A strong answer to the No Win No Fee question confirms that no professional fees are payable if the claim fails, identifies who funds disbursements during the claim and what happens to those disbursements if the claim is unsuccessful, and points to the specific clauses in the costs agreement that define "success" and the firm's funding obligations. An answer that says "yes, No Win No Fee" without addressing the disbursement question is incomplete, and the claimant should follow up with the disbursement funding question covered later in this article.

"Do you charge an uplift fee?"

An uplift fee is an additional percentage charged on top of base professional fees if the claim succeeds. The fee is permitted under section 324 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) for litigious matters, capped at 25% of the legal costs excluding disbursements. However, not all personal injury firms charge uplift fees. 

Uplift fees are discretionary, not mandatory. Some Queensland personal injury firms charge the full 25% uplift fee on every successful matter. The justification offered for an uplift is that the firm has carried the risk of running the matter on a No Win No Fee basis, and the uplift compensates the firm for that risk if the claim succeeds. Other firms charge a reduced uplift, and a smaller number of firms charge no uplift at all. The difference between a firm charging the full 25% and a firm charging zero is material to the claimant's net settlement, and the costs agreement must specify the uplift rate before the claimant signs.

The strongest answer to the uplift fee question for a claimant is that the firm does not charge an uplift fee. A firm with no uplift policy is putting the entire success-related cost saving into the claimant's net settlement rather than capturing it as additional firm revenue. A firm that does charge an uplift should state the rate clearly, identify whether it applies to all matters or only to matters that proceed past a certain stage, and point to the relevant clause in the costs agreement. A description of the uplift as "reasonable" or "as permitted by law" without giving a specific percentage is evasive, because the maximum permitted is 25% and the claimant is entitled to know the firm's actual rate before signing.

"Do you charge any additional percentage fees, such as 'care and consideration'?"

Additional percentage fees are further percentage charges added on top of professional fees and the uplift, often described as 'care and consideration' or by similar terminology. Care and consideration is a historical solicitor charging concept that loaded an additional percentage onto the fee for matters considered complex or requiring particular skill. The practice has become uncommon in Queensland personal injury work because reputable firms cap their professional fees on time and tasks performed under the costs agreement, but some firms continue to apply care and consideration charges or equivalent loadings.

Additional percentage fees in a personal injury matter compound on top of base professional fees and the uplift, increasing the total charge to the claimant without a corresponding increase in work performed. A firm that applies a 25% uplift and a separate 25% care and consideration loading on $40,000 of base professional fees will charge $40,000 plus $10,000 uplift plus $10,000 care and consideration, totalling $60,000 before disbursements and goods and services tax (GST), on the same base work that another firm without those loadings would charge $40,000 for.

The mark of a transparent firm is a direct "no, the firm does not charge care and consideration or any other percentage loading on top of professional fees and uplift." A firm that does charge such fees should disclose the rate, the basis on which it applies, and where it sits in the costs agreement. An evasive answer or a firm that obscures the existence of additional percentage fees in the costs agreement is a red flag.

"Do your fees change depending on how or when the claim resolves?"

The fee timing question asks whether the firm's professional fees vary based on the stage at which the claim resolves, including early settlement, compulsory conference resolution, or trial. Professional fees in a Queensland conditional cost agreement are calculated on time and tasks performed, which means a claim that resolves at compulsory conference will accrue fewer fees than a claim that proceeds to trial, all else equal. A claim that settles at the notice of claim stage will accrue fewer fees again.

Fee timing in a personal injury matter creates an alignment question between the firm and the claimant. A firm running on time-based fees has an incentive to perform necessary work, and a firm running on a fixed or capped fee has different incentives. A firm that applies a voluntary cap on professional fees below the 50/50 statutory ceiling produces a more predictable outcome for the claimant regardless of when the matter resolves.

An informative answer gives a realistic range with low and high ends, explains the variables that move the figure within that range, and identifies the evidentiary work that would tighten the estimate. An answer that gives a single high figure without a range, or that promises a specific dollar outcome at the consultation stage, is typically a red flag because there is no way to guarantee what a claim will be worth. This is one of the reason personal injury compensation calculators typically provide large range values. 

"Will you give me a written estimate of total costs before I sign?"

A written estimate of total costs covers professional fees, uplift, GST, and disbursements, and must be provided before the claimant signs the costs agreement. Section 308 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) requires a law practice to disclose the estimated total cost of the matter to the client in writing before the client signs the costs agreement. The disclosure obligation is statutory and not optional.

The written estimate of total costs is necessarily a range rather than a fixed figure at the start of a personal injury matter, because the duration and complexity of the claim are not known until the evidence develops. A reasonable estimate will identify the likely range of professional fees, the expected disbursement profile by claim stage, the uplift rate, and the GST treatment, with explanation of the factors that drive the high and low ends of the range.

A capable lawyer confirms that a written estimate is provided as part of the costs disclosure under section 308, gives a realistic range based on the firm's experience with similar matters, and explains the factors that affect where in the range a particular claim will fall. Watch for firms that defer the estimate until "after we have more information" or refuse to provide one in writing, since both positions are non-compliant with the disclosure obligation and a serious red flag.

"Is there a cooling-off period after I sign the costs agreement?"

A cooling-off period in a Queensland conditional cost agreement is a statutory five-business-day window during which the claimant can terminate the agreement by written notice without consequence. Section 323(3)(e) of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) requires a conditional cost agreement to provide for the cooling-off period. The cooling-off period is mandatory for conditional cost agreements and cannot be contracted out of.

Cooling-off period awareness matters because a claimant who feels uncertain after signing has a clear statutory pathway to withdraw without consequence. The five-business-day window starts from the day after the agreement is entered into. During the cooling-off period, the firm cannot perform work for which it would charge the claimant, and a claimant who terminates within the period is liable only for work performed under instructions specifically given during the period itself.

Look for an answer that confirms the statutory five-business-day cooling-off period, identifies how to exercise the right to terminate, and points to the clause in the costs agreement that records the cooling-off period. A firm that does not mention the cooling-off period at all, or that obscures it in the costs agreement, is non-compliant with section 323(3)(e), and the absence of a cooling-off period clause is a reason to walk away before signing.

Questions about communication

Questions about communication establish the day-to-day operating model of the firm, the level of personal lawyer involvement, and how the claimant will be kept informed during the claim. Personal injury matters in Queensland typically run for one to three years from notice of claim to settlement, and the quality of communication over that period determines how the claimant experiences the claim. Communication failures are the most common subject of formal complaints to the Legal Services Commission, ahead of disputes about fees or claim outcomes.

Three questions cover the full ground in the communication category. The questions look behind firm marketing language about "personal service" or "dedicated team" to identify the actual operating model: who answers the phone, who drafts the correspondence, who makes strategic decisions, and how often the claimant hears from the firm. Each model produces different communication quality, different responsiveness, and different experience for the claimant. The work of choosing a personal injury lawyer involves weighing the firm's communication model alongside its credentials, fee structure, and approach to the claim, and the questions in this category give the claimant a working view of the model.

"Who will be my main point of contact?"

The point of contact question asks which named person at the firm will be the claimant's day-to-day contact for calls, emails, and questions about the claim. The answer identifies whether the lead lawyer is also the day-to-day contact, whether a paralegal or case manager handles routine contact with escalation to the lawyer for legal questions, or whether a hybrid arrangement applies. The model is not inherently better or worse depending on the answer, but the claimant is entitled to know which named person will pick up the phone.

The named point of contact is the person whose direct line, mobile, and email the claimant should have at the end of the consultation. A firm that offers only a generic firm number, a general inbox, or "your team" as the contact point is hiding the operating model behind marketing language. The claimant who needs an answer about a treatment appointment, a medical report, or an insurer letter wants to speak to a specific person who knows the file, not to be routed through reception each time.

What you want to hear is the name of the specific lawyer, paralegal, or case manager who will be the day-to-day contact, their direct contact details, and who covers their work when they are unavailable. An answer that references "our team" without naming the individual, or that promises "someone will always be available" without explaining the routing, is a sign of a volume model in which the claimant is one of many files passing through a shared inbox.

"How often will I receive updates, and how will complex decisions be explained to me?"

Communication cadence covers the frequency of updates on the claim, what those updates contain, and how the firm explains settlement offers, strategic decisions, and risk assessments in plain language. Update frequency in a personal injury matter varies legitimately by stage. Periods of intensive activity, such as the lead-up to compulsory conference or trial preparation, produce frequent updates. Periods of medical recovery or waiting for insurer responses produce fewer updates because there is less substantive activity to report.

Communication quality matters as much as communication frequency. The claimant who receives a copy of every letter the firm sends and receives, with no explanation, is technically informed but practically left in the dark. The claimant who receives a monthly summary that explains where the claim is, what is happening next, and how to interpret recent insurer correspondence is properly informed. A firm that translates legal and insurance jargon into plain language at decision points is doing the communication work properly.

An informative answer to the communication cadence question commits to a specific update frequency, identifies the format of updates, and confirms that settlement offers and strategic decisions will be explained in plain language with the claimant's options laid out. A firm that defers to "as needed" or "we will be in touch when there is news" gives itself full control of the communication and leaves the claimant guessing. The claimant is entitled to set a minimum cadence even during quiet periods.

"Who responds when the lead lawyer is unavailable?"

Cover arrangements identify who at the firm responds to claimant queries when the lead lawyer is on leave, in court, or otherwise unavailable. A personal injury claim runs for years, and the lead lawyer will be unavailable at various points. The question is not whether unavailability happens but whether the firm has a clear cover arrangement, who that person is, and whether the cover lawyer has access to the file and the authority to respond meaningfully.

Cover arrangements at a firm vary by operating model. A specialist firm with named senior lawyers will typically have a defined cover lawyer who knows the file and can respond on substantive questions. A volume firm with shared case-management inboxes will route queries to whichever paralegal or junior is available. The first model gives the claimant continuity and substantive responses. The second model gives the claimant a response from someone who has not previously read the file.

A direct answer names the cover lawyer, confirms that lawyer has access to the file and authority to respond on substantive matters, and identifies the firm's expected response time when the lead lawyer is unavailable. An answer that describes "the team" or "another lawyer" without naming the cover person, or that promises responses "as soon as possible" without a target timeframe, leaves the cover arrangement undefined.

Questions about the claim process

Questions about the claim process establish the lawyer's preliminary view on prospects, the time limits that govern the matter, the heads of damage available, the realistic settlement range, the evidence required, and the likely timeframe from start to settlement. The answers to these questions form the lawyer's first-cut assessment of the claim and tell the claimant what the next twelve to thirty-six months are likely to look like. A capable Queensland personal injury lawyer can give a preliminary view on each of these questions in the first consultation, even where the full claim valuation requires further medical and financial evidence.

Six questions cover the full ground in the claim process category. The questions sit at the operational core of the consultation, since the answers shape every decision the claimant makes from notice of claim through to settlement. 

(H3) "Do I have a viable claim, and what are the prospects?"

The viability and prospects question asks whether the lawyer believes the claim has reasonable prospects of success and how strong those prospects are at the preliminary assessment stage. A viable claim in Queensland personal injury law generally requires that another party owed the claimant a duty of care, breached that duty, and caused the claimant injury and loss as a result. Prospects describe the lawyer's degree of confidence that those elements can be established on the evidence likely to be available.

Preliminary prospects assessment is necessarily provisional. The lawyer has not yet seen the full medical evidence, the insurer's position, or any independent expert reports, and the assessment will firm up as evidence develops. A capable lawyer can nonetheless give a meaningful preliminary view based on the claimant's account, the documents available at the consultation, and the lawyer's experience with similar matters. The view should distinguish between strong, moderate, and weak prospects, and identify the key evidentiary questions that will determine where the claim lands.

A strong answer to the viability and prospects question gives a preliminary prospects view in plain language, identifies the strengths and weaknesses of the claim as the lawyer sees them, and explains what evidence would strengthen or weaken those prospects. The opposite poles to avoid are the lawyer who offers only "you have a great case" and the lawyer who refuses to give any preliminary view at all, since the first overpromises and the second leaves the claimant without the information needed to decide whether to proceed.

"What time limits apply to my claim?"

Time limits in Queensland personal injury law are the statutory deadlines that govern when a claim must be notified, commenced in court, or otherwise progressed, and missing them can extinguish the claim entirely regardless of merit. The applicable limits depend on the type of claim and the date of the injury, and Queensland's regimes each impose their own deadlines. A first consultation should establish whether any deadline has already been triggered or missed.

The principal time limits in Queensland personal injury law include the three-year limitation period for commencing court proceedings under the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), the nine-month notice of claim requirement under section 37 of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) for Compulsory Third Party (CTP) claims, the nine-month notice requirement under the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) for public liability and similar claims, and the six-month notification window for workplace injuries under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld). Different limits apply to claims involving minors, claimants with legal disability, latent injury, and medical negligence, and Nominal Defendant claims for unidentified or uninsured vehicles carry their own three-month and nine-month deadlines.

A capable lawyer identifies the specific statutory regime that applies to the claimant's matter, names the relevant deadlines and the dates they expire, and confirms whether any deadlines have already been triggered or missed. The answer should also flag any extension provisions that may apply the statutory time limits where a deadline has been missed and explain the evidentiary requirements for seeking an extension. A lawyer who cannot identify the applicable time limits at the first consultation does not have the necessary depth in the area.

"What heads of damage am I able to claim?"

Heads of damage are the categories of compensation a claimant is entitled to claim under the relevant statutory and common law regime. In a Queensland personal injury claim the main heads of damage typically include general damages for pain and suffering, past and future economic loss, past and future medical and treatment expenses, past and future gratuitous and paid care, and special damages for out-of-pocket expenses. Some matters also include loss of superannuation, interest, and aggravated or exemplary damages where the conduct warrants.

The heads of damage available depend on the type of claim. A CTP claim under the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) draws on common law damages assessed under the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) and the Civil Liability Regulation 2025 (Qld), which sets the Injury Scale Value (ISV) framework for general damages. A workers' compensation claim under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) provides statutory benefits with a separate common law damages pathway for negligence-based claims. A public liability claim under the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) draws on the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) framework. Each regime produces a different set of available heads.

A strong answer to the heads of damage question identifies the specific heads the claimant is likely to claim, gives an indication of which heads will form the larger components of the claim, and explains how each head is calculated under the applicable regime. The answer should also flag any heads that may be reduced or excluded based on the facts, such as economic loss caps, statutory thresholds for general damages, or contributory negligence reductions.

"What is a realistic settlement range based on similar matters you have handled?"

The settlement range question asks for the lawyer's view on the realistic settlement range based on actual recent outcomes in matters similar to the claimant's claim. Settlement values in Queensland personal injury law follow patterns by injury type, severity, claimant circumstances, and the relevant insurer, and an experienced lawyer can give a meaningful range without seeing the full evidence. The range will be wide at the consultation stage and narrow as evidence develops.

Realistic settlement range discussion is built on the lawyer's caseload, not on advertised case studies or marketing material. A lawyer who has resolved fifteen to twenty matters of similar type in the past three years has a working sense of where similar claims settle. The range should account for the heads of damage discussed above, the severity of the injuries as currently understood, and the typical insurer position on matters of that profile.

An informative answer gives a realistic range with low and high ends, explains the variables that move the figure within that range, and identifies the evidentiary work that would tighten the estimate. An answer that gives a single high figure without a range, or that promises a specific dollar outcome at the consultation stage, is typically a red flag as there is no way to predict the outcome of a personal injury settlement with total accuracy. An answer that refuses to give any range at all is unhelpful, because the range is the basis on which the claimant decides whether the claim is worth running.

"What evidence will be needed?"

Evidence in a personal injury claim covers the documentary, medical, and expert material required to prove liability and quantum, including what is already available and what the firm will gather during the matter. Personal injury claims in Queensland are evidence-heavy, and the matter develops as the evidence develops. The lawyer should be able to outline the evidence profile at the first consultation based on the type of claim and the heads of damage involved, but most matters do require medical evidence.

The evidence profile typically includes contemporaneous medical records, GP and specialist reports, hospital records, imaging and test results, independent medico-legal reports arranged by the firm, employer records and payslips for economic loss, taxation records, witness statements, scene photographs, and expert reports where liability or quantum is disputed. The mix of evidence depends on the claim type, the disputed issues, and the heads of damage being claimed. Some evidence is gathered at the start of the matter, some accumulates over the period of medical recovery, and some is commissioned at specific stages of the pre-court process.

A strong answer to the evidence question identifies the evidence already available at the consultation, the evidence the firm will gather as part of running the matter, and the evidence the claimant will need to obtain or assist with personally. The answer should also explain the disbursement profile of the evidence-gathering work, since medical reports and expert reports are the largest cost component of disbursements in most matters.

"What is the likely timeframe from start to settlement?"

The timeframe in a Queensland personal injury claim is typically twelve to thirty-six months from first instructions to settlement, broken down by the stages of the matter. The duration of the claim process is driven by the time required for medical recovery to stabilise, the pre-court statutory process under the relevant Act, and the negotiation period with the insurer. Claims involving catastrophic injury, contested liability, or complex medical causation can run longer.

The stages of a typical personal injury claim include initial investigation and notice of claim, exchange of evidence with the insurer, independent medical examinations, quantum assessment and demand, compulsory conference, and settlement or commencement of court proceedings. The great majority of matters resolve at or shortly after the compulsory conference, with only a small minority proceeding to trial. The pre-court stages run on statutory timetables that the firm cannot accelerate beyond a certain point, but the firm can prevent unnecessary delay.

A strong answer to the timeframe question gives a realistic range based on the firm's experience with similar matters, identifies the factors that drive the high and low ends of the range, and explains the stages of the claim and what happens at each. Be sceptical of firms that promise a quick settlement, since claims that settle too early often settle for less than they would after the full evidence develops.

Questions about resolution strategy

Questions about resolution strategy establish how the claim is likely to resolve, the lawyer's approach to negotiating with the insurer, and the lawyer's willingness to proceed to trial if the insurer's position does not justify settlement. Resolution strategy questions sit between claim process questions, which describe what will happen, and worst-case scenario questions, which describe what happens if the claim fails. The answers reveal whether the firm runs a pure-settlement model, a settlement-or-trial model, or a model that defaults to whatever produces the quickest fee outcome.

Two questions cover the full ground in the resolution strategy category. The questions are particularly useful for matters with disputed liability, contested quantum, or insurers known for taking aggressive positions, since those matters are most likely to test the lawyer's resolution philosophy.

"Is my claim likely to settle at a compulsory conference or proceed to trial?"

Settlement venue is the stage of the personal injury claim process at which the lawyer expects the matter to resolve, based on the lawyer's assessment of the evidence, the insurer involved, and the strength of the claim. Personal injury claims in Queensland resolve through one of four typical pathways. These are early settlement during the pre-court process, settlement at compulsory conference, settlement after compulsory conference but before trial, or determination at trial. Less than 1% of personal injury claims in Queensland proceed to trial, but the small minority that do are not random. They are typically claims where liability is contested, quantum is heavily disputed, or the insurer's offer at compulsory conference does not adequately reflect the claim's realistic value.

The compulsory conference is the mandatory pre-court mediation under section 51A of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) for public liability claims and under section 51 of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) for Compulsory Third Party (CTP) claims. The compulsory conference brings the claimant, the insurer, and the legal representatives together to negotiate settlement after the parties have exchanged evidence and quantified the claim. Most personal injury claims settle at or shortly after the compulsory conference because the parties have, by that stage, tested each other's evidence and developed a realistic view of what a court would award.

A strong answer to the settlement venue question identifies the stage at which the lawyer expects the matter to resolve, explains the reasoning, and flags the factors that could move the matter into a different pathway. The answer should account for the relevant insurer's typical conduct, the strength of the evidence, and the heads of damage in dispute. By contrast, a lawyer who promises early settlement without testing the insurer's position, or who defers all strategic discussion to "let's see how it develops," fails to give the claimant a basis for understanding what the next twelve to thirty-six months will look like.

"What is your approach to negotiating with insurers?"

Negotiation approach covers the firm's posture on early settlement offers, its preparedness to commence court proceedings, and its track record against the relevant insurer. Insurers and self-insurers in Queensland personal injury work include the CTP insurers under the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld), WorkCover Queensland and self-insured employers under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), and public liability and medical indemnity insurers under the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld). Each insurer has its own claims-handling culture, settlement patterns, and willingness to litigate, and an experienced lawyer knows which insurers respond to which approach.

The firm's negotiation posture sets the tone of the matter. A firm that is known for accepting the first reasonable offer will receive lower offers across all matters, because the relevant insurer's claims handlers price that pattern into their initial position. A firm that is known to commence court proceedings when offers are inadequate will receive different treatment, because the insurer's claims handlers price that pattern into their position too. The pattern is not a question of being aggressive or measured; it is a question of whether the firm is taken seriously as a litigation risk by the insurer.

A capable lawyer describes the firm's general posture, identifies the insurers the firm has run matters against and the firm's track record on those matters, and explains how the firm approaches settlement offers at different stages. The answer should also confirm that the firm will commence court proceedings if the insurer's position does not justify settlement, since a firm that never goes to court is offering the insurer a guarantee that no offer will be tested. An answer that describes the approach in vague terms ("we always fight for the best result") without explaining the underlying strategy is marketing language rather than a substantive position.

Questions about worst-case scenarios

Questions about worst-case scenarios establish the claimant's financial exposure if the claim is unsuccessful, what happens to disbursements already incurred, the consequences of losing at trial, and the claimant's position if the relationship with the firm breaks down during the matter. Worst-case scenarios questions are the questions claimants are most reluctant to ask, because the answers describe outcomes the claimant is hoping to avoid, but they are also the questions where unclear answers expose the claimant to the largest unexpected financial risk.

Four questions cover the full ground in the worst-case scenarios category. The questions surface terms that should be in the costs agreement but are sometimes obscured in fine print, and they identify the practical mechanics of an outcome the firm's marketing language is unlikely to address. A transparent firm will answer all four questions directly because the answers are matters of fact rather than judgement.

"What is my financial exposure if the claim is unsuccessful?"

Financial exposure on a failed claim covers what the claimant will owe if the claim does not succeed, including professional fees, disbursements, GST, and any adverse costs orders. A true No Win No Fee arrangement in Queensland means the firm waives professional fees and the uplift if the claim fails, but the position on disbursements, GST on disbursements, and adverse costs orders is set by the costs agreement and varies materially across firms. The phrase "no win, no fee" addresses only the lawyer's professional fees, not the broader cost picture.

The components of financial exposure on an unsuccessful claim include the disbursements paid by or on behalf of the claimant during the matter, the goods and services tax (GST) on those disbursements, any interest accrued on a third-party litigation loan used to fund disbursements, and any costs ordered against the claimant by a court if the matter proceeded to litigation. Each component depends on the funding model the firm runs and the stage at which the claim becomes unsuccessful. A firm that funds disbursements out of firm capital and waives recovery on a failed claim leaves the claimant at zero exposure on disbursements. A firm that uses a third-party litigation loan or that requires the claimant to fund disbursements personally leaves the claimant exposed to the full disbursement amount plus interest if the claim fails.

A strong answer to the financial exposure question gives a concrete dollar figure or range for the claimant's worst-case exposure, identifies which costs the claimant will and will not be liable for in each failure scenario, and points to the specific clauses in the costs agreement that determine the position. An answer that describes the arrangement as "no win, no fee, you pay nothing" without addressing disbursements, GST, and litigation loan interest is incomplete and the claimant should follow up on each component before signing.

"What happens to disbursements already incurred if the claim fails?"

Failed-claim disbursements treatment determines whether the claimant is liable for the disbursements paid during the matter if the claim is unsuccessful, and if so, how much those disbursements typically amount to. Disbursements in a Queensland personal injury claim are out-of-pocket expenses paid to third parties to advance the claim, including medical reports, expert witness reports, barrister fees, court filing fees, and administrative charges such as record retrieval. Disbursements are distinct from professional fees and from the uplift, and the costs agreement treats them separately.

The claimant's position on failed-claim disbursements depends on the funding model the firm runs. A firm that funds disbursements out of firm capital and waives recovery on a failed claim charges the claimant nothing if the claim is unsuccessful. A firm that requires the claimant to sign a third-party litigation loan agreement passes the disbursement liability to the claimant via the loan, with interest accruing from the date each disbursement is drawn. A firm that requires the claimant to fund disbursements directly leaves the disbursement liability with the claimant from the outset. The disbursement profile of a typical Queensland personal injury claim ranges from approximately $5,000 to $15,000 for a standard CTP matter and can reach $25,000 to $80,000 or more for a complex medical negligence claim.

A strong answer to the failed-claim disbursements question states the funding model in clear terms, gives a realistic estimate of the disbursement spend across the stages of the claim, and confirms in writing what the claimant will and will not owe if the matter fails. An answer that treats disbursements as the claimant's responsibility "as a standard term" without explaining the dollar exposure is insufficient, because the dollar figure is the figure that determines whether the claimant can afford to lose the claim.

"What happens if I lose at trial?"

Trial loss in a Queensland personal injury matter triggers financial consequences that follow when a court decides against the claimant, including liability for a portion of the successful party's legal costs in addition to the claimant's own disbursements. Personal injury claims that proceed to trial in Queensland represent less than 1% of all matters, but the trial-loss outcome carries the largest financial exposure of any pathway. The exposure is real but the probability is low, and the question is best understood by separating the two.

Adverse costs orders at trial in Queensland personal injury matters typically range from $50,000 to $200,000 or higher depending on the size of the claim and the complexity of the trial. The unsuccessful party is ordinarily liable for a portion of the successful party's legal costs on a "party and party" basis, which generally recovers between 30% and 50% of actual legal costs. The claimant's exposure includes that adverse costs order plus the claimant's own disbursements, and the claimant cannot rely on the firm's costs agreement to absorb the adverse costs order unless the costs agreement specifically provides for the firm to do so. A finding of contributory negligence at trial can also affect the cost outcome, since a finding that the claimant contributed to the injury reduces the damages awarded but does not necessarily protect the claimant from a costs order on the discount portion.

An informative answer explains the costs consequences of an unsuccessful trial in concrete terms, identifies whether the firm has any policy of absorbing adverse costs orders for clients, and confirms the firm's view on the litigation risk in the claimant's specific matter. The answer should also explain the role of "Calderbank" offers and formal offers under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules in protecting the claimant from adverse costs where a settlement offer has been made and refused. An answer that minimises the trial-loss risk to "it almost never happens" without addressing the financial mechanics if it does is incomplete.

"What happens if I want to change lawyers during my claim?"

Changing lawyers mid-matter raises the question of whether the claimant can change firms during the claim, what the financial consequences are, and how the existing firm's costs and disbursements are treated on the change. The claimant has a general right to change legal representation at any time, but the financial consequences depend on the costs agreement and the stage of the matter. A claimant who has lost confidence in the firm's handling of the matter, who has identified communication or strategic problems, or who has discovered the costs agreement does not match what was discussed at the consultation has a clear interest in understanding the change-of-lawyer mechanics before signing.

The standard mechanics of changing lawyers in a Queensland personal injury matter involve the new firm's first costs agreement, the existing firm's claim for fees and disbursements incurred to the date of change, and the transfer of the file from the existing firm to the new firm. A No Win No Fee costs agreement typically provides that the existing firm's professional fees become payable on the change of lawyer regardless of the eventual outcome of the claim, although the practical effect depends on the specific clause and the stage of the matter. Disbursements paid by the existing firm are also typically claimed back at the change of lawyer. Some costs agreements include a "deemed success" clause that crystallises fee liability on the change, and other agreements take a more flexible approach.

A strong answer to the change-of-lawyer question explains the mechanics in plain language, identifies whether the costs agreement crystallises fees on a change, and confirms whether the firm will cooperate with a file transfer if the claimant decides to move. The answer should also flag the practical reality that a claimant who changes lawyers mid-matter inherits the existing fee structure into the new arrangement, which limits the financial benefit of changing unless there is a substantive problem with the existing firm. A firm that becomes defensive or evasive when asked the change-of-lawyer question is signalling that the costs agreement contains terms the firm does not want to discuss before the claimant signs.

Cost and agreement questions most claimants don't think to ask

Cost and agreement questions most claimants don't think to ask establish the parts of the costs agreement that have the largest impact on net settlement but receive the least attention in marketing material and competitor articles. The questions in this category go behind the headline "No Win No Fee" framing to surface the funding model, the GST treatment of disbursements, the firm's voluntary cap policy below the statutory ceiling, the post-2022 treatment of litigation loan interest, and the contents of the formal cost disclosure under section 308 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld). The answers separate firms that have engineered a transparent, claimant-protective cost structure from firms that rely on the complexity of the costs agreement to capture marginal revenue.

Five questions cover the full ground in the cost and agreement category. Each question maps to a specific compliance or commercial variable in a Queensland personal injury costs agreement, and the questions in combination produce a complete picture of the firm's actual fee policy. The treatment of disbursements in a personal injury claim is the financial component most affected by the answers in this section, since disbursement funding interacts with each of the other variables.

"Do you carry disbursements yourself, or use a litigation loan?"

The disbursement funding question asks whether the firm pays disbursements out of firm capital during the claim or whether disbursements are funded by a third-party litigation loan in the claimant's name. Disbursements in a Queensland personal injury claim are out-of-pocket expenses paid to third parties to advance the claim, including medical reports, expert witness reports, barrister fees, and court filing fees. The firm's funding model determines whether the claimant carries financial risk on those disbursements during the claim and whether interest accrues on the disbursement balance.

The two principal funding models in Queensland personal injury work produce materially different net outcomes. A firm-funded model has the firm paying disbursements out of its own capital and recovering the disbursement amount from the settlement at the end of the matter, with no interest charged to the claimant. A litigation loan model has the firm arranging a third-party loan in the claimant's name to fund disbursements, with interest accruing at rates typically between 9% and 15% per annum from the date each disbursement is drawn. A claim with $15,000 of disbursements running for two years on a 12% loan accrues approximately $3,800 in interest, which is deducted from the claimant's net settlement at the end of the matter.

A strong answer to the disbursement funding question states the funding model in clear terms, identifies the lender if a litigation loan is used, and explains the dollar impact of the funding model on the claimant's net settlement. A firm that funds disbursements out of firm capital should say so directly, and a firm that uses a litigation loan should provide the loan documentation as part of the costs disclosure. An answer that obscures the funding model behind the phrase "we cover everything during your claim" without specifying who actually owes the lender is incomplete, since the claimant's name on the loan agreement is the determining fact.

"Do you charge GST on disbursements?"

GST treatment of disbursements covers whether the firm charges goods and services tax (GST) on disbursements paid to third parties, in addition to charging GST on professional fees and the uplift. Disbursements paid to third parties are typically treated as outgoings rather than as supplies by the law firm, which means the third party (such as the medical specialist or the barrister) charges GST directly on the disbursement and the law firm passes that GST through to the claimant without adding a further GST charge. The law firm's professional fees and the uplift are the firm's own supplies and attract GST in the standard way.

GST treatment of disbursements becomes a fee-loading question when a firm chooses to charge GST on the disbursement amount as if the disbursement were a supply by the firm itself. The treatment doubles the GST charge on the disbursement, since the third party has already charged GST when the disbursement was paid. Across $15,000 of disbursements, double-GST treatment adds approximately $1,500 to the claimant's total cost without any corresponding increase in service.

A strong answer to the GST question confirms that GST is charged only on professional fees and the uplift, and that disbursements are passed through at cost with the third party's GST included in the disbursement amount. A firm that charges its own GST on disbursements in addition to the third party's GST should disclose the practice and explain the basis on which the firm treats disbursements as the firm's own supply. An evasive answer or a costs agreement that describes GST treatment in language that does not address the disbursement question directly warrants a follow-up before signing.

"Is there a cap on professional fees in your costs agreement below the 50/50 statutory cap?"

A voluntary internal cap is an undertaking in the firm's costs agreement that time-based professional fees will not exceed a nominated proportion of the claimant's net settlement, operating below the 50/50 statutory cap set under section 347 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld). The 50/50 statutory cap prevents a Queensland personal injury law firm from charging total claim-related legal costs exceeding 50% of the damages received by the claimant after disbursements and statutory refunds are deducted. The cap operates as a backstop on the bill rather than the standard fee, with some Queensland firms publicly committing to internal caps that produce a more favourable outcome for the claimant in successful matters.

A voluntary internal cap operates as an undertaking that the firm's time-based professional fees, calculated under the costs agreement on time and tasks performed, will not exceed a nominated proportion of the claimant's net settlement in a successful matter. Some firms commit to an internal cap of 25%, others 30%, and others 35%, in each case while still calculating fees on time and tasks and remaining subject to the 50/50 statutory cap as the legal ceiling. Section 325 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) prohibits contingency fees calculated as a percentage of damages, so a voluntary cap is structured as a ceiling on time-based fees rather than as a percentage-of-recovery calculation.

The mark of a transparent firm is a clear statement of the internal cap commitment, the percentage and the specific clause in the costs agreement that records it, and confirmation that the cap applies to professional fees and the uplift combined or separately. A firm with no internal cap relies on the 50/50 statutory ceiling alone, which means the claimant's net settlement is exposed to the full statutory maximum in time-based fees if the matter runs to that point. A firm that describes its fees as "capped" without identifying whether the cap is the statutory ceiling or an internal commitment below it is using language that obscures rather than reveals the firm's actual policy.

"How is interest on a litigation loan treated within the 50/50 cap?"

The litigation loan interest question asks whether interest on any litigation loan used to fund disbursements is treated as a claim-related cost within the 50/50 statutory cap, and how that treatment affects the firm's fee calculation. The post-2022 amendment to section 347 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) clarified that interest on a litigation loan is "claim-related costs" within the 50/50 cap when the firm recommended or facilitated the loan. The amendment commenced on 30 June 2022 via the Personal Injuries Proceedings and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2022.

The treatment of litigation loan interest within the 50/50 cap matters because it determines whether the loan interest comes out of the firm's fee allocation or out of the claimant's settlement above the cap. Under the post-2022 framework, where the firm recommended or facilitated the loan, the loan interest counts toward the 50% maximum the firm can charge, which means the firm's professional fees and uplift are reduced dollar-for-dollar by the loan interest accrued during the matter. Where the loan was arranged independently by the claimant without the firm's recommendation or facilitation, the loan interest may sit outside the 50/50 cap and be borne entirely by the claimant. The distinction turns on the firm's role in arranging or recommending the loan and is fact-specific.

A strong answer to the litigation loan interest question identifies whether the firm recommends or facilitates a particular litigation loan provider, confirms the post-2022 treatment of loan interest within the 50/50 cap on that arrangement, and explains the practical effect on the claimant's net settlement. A firm that uses a litigation loan but treats the loan interest as outside the 50/50 cap, despite having recommended or facilitated the loan, is operating outside the post-2022 statutory framework. A claimant who is uncertain whether the firm's arrangement falls within or outside the cap should request the costs agreement clauses that address the question and consider seeking a second opinion before signing.

"What is included in the section 308 cost disclosure I'll receive?"

Section 308 cost disclosure is the written information the firm is required to give the claimant before signing the costs agreement, under the disclosure obligation imposed by section 308 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld). The disclosure is the primary statutory document the claimant receives at the consultation stage and contains the information needed to make an informed decision about the retainer. The disclosure obligation applies to all law practices in Queensland and is not a discretionary courtesy.

The information required in a section 308 cost disclosure includes the basis on which legal costs will be calculated, an estimate of the total legal costs, the major variables that will affect the costs calculation, the client's right to negotiate the costs agreement and to receive a bill, the client's right to request an itemised bill under section 332, the client's right to apply for costs assessment under section 335, and the avenues for resolving disputes about legal costs. For a conditional cost agreement, the disclosure must additionally cover the conditions under which fees become payable, the cooling-off period under section 323(3)(e), and the maximum amount that can be charged under the 50/50 cap in section 347.

A strong answer to the section 308 disclosure question confirms that the claimant will receive the disclosure in writing before signing, identifies the format of the disclosure document, and offers the claimant time to read the disclosure before being asked to sign the costs agreement. A firm that treats the disclosure as a procedural formality, that asks the claimant to sign the costs agreement at the same meeting as the consultation, or that does not provide a written disclosure document at all is non-compliant with the section 308 obligation. The disclosure document is the most important written record of the firm's fee policy at the start of the matter, and a claimant who is rushed through the disclosure has a clear pathway under section 328 to set aside the resulting costs agreement on application to the court or to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal.