CFA Transfers and Costs Recoverability: Procedure, Risk and Assessment Strategy

Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA) transfers arise where a claimant changes legal representation and the CFA is assigned or replaced. While the procedural mechanics are familiar, the costs consequences are often underestimated.

CFA transfers sit at the intersection of procedure, conduct, and recoverability, and they frequently become issues at detailed assessment.

What Is a CFA Transfer?

A CFA transfer typically occurs when:

• a claimant moves from one firm to another

• an existing CFA is assigned

• a new CFA replaces the original

• responsibility for work done under the first retainer shifts

From a procedural standpoint, this involves:

• notice of change of solicitor

• review of retainer documentation

• clarity on client authority

• allocation of costs between firms

While the paperwork may appear straightforward, the recoverability implications can be complex.

Why CFA Transfers Create Costs Risk

Costs disputes often arise because CFA transfers raise questions about:

• whether work under the original retainer is recoverable

• whether authority for the transfer was properly obtained

• duplication of work between firms

• reasonableness of costs incurred during transition

• whether the transfer increased overall costs unnecessarily

Paying parties frequently examine CFA transitions closely because they can significantly affect exposure.

Recoverability Issues at Detailed Assessment

At detailed assessment, the court may consider:

• whether the retainer arrangements were valid

• whether the CFA transfer was properly documented

• whether both firms’ work was necessary

• whether duplication occurred

• whether the transfer led to avoidable cost increases

This turns a procedural event into a conduct and recoverability question.

How Paying Parties Challenge Costs After a CFA Transfer

Effective challenges often focus on:

🔹 Duplication of Work

Paying parties may argue that new solicitors repeated work already completed, leading to unnecessary cost.

🔹 Authority and Retainer Issues

If documentation is unclear or incomplete, arguments may be made that some costs were not properly authorised.

🔹 Transition Inefficiency

Where a change of representation increases time spent reviewing files, preparing again, or re-doing steps, paying parties argue this was avoidable.

🔹 Proportionality

Even where work was done, the court may consider whether the costs remain proportionate in light of the transfer.

Conduct and Reasonableness

CFA transfers are not automatically problematic. Courts recognise that clients may legitimately change solicitors.

The key questions become:

• Was the change reasonable?

• Was the transfer managed efficiently?

• Were costs kept under control during transition?

Poor handling of the transfer can create arguments that would not otherwise exist.

Common Mistakes That Increase Dispute Risk

Problems often arise where:

• retainer documentation is incomplete

• no clear record of authority exists

• file handover is inefficient

• both firms bill for similar review work

• there is no explanation for transition time

These gaps give paying parties scope to challenge recoverability.

Strategic Implications

Understanding CFA transfer risks helps with:

• exposure modelling

• preparing evidence for assessment

• avoiding duplication challenges

• managing proportionality arguments

• anticipating paying party positions

Procedural steps during transfer can have lasting consequences at assessment.

Key Takeaways

• CFA transfers are procedural events with recoverability implications

• Duplication and authority issues often drive disputes

• Paying parties scrutinise transitions closely

• Efficiency and documentation are critical

• The issue frequently arises at detailed assessment