Choosing a lawyer is one of those decisions that feels obvious until it goes wrong. The names look interchangeable, the websites look similar, and the advice on offer tends to arrive late — usually after the deadline that mattered has already passed.
The difference between a good choice and an expensive one is rarely the size of the firm or the speed of the reply. It is whether the person you appoint understands the problem you actually have, works in the right jurisdiction, and is accountable for what happens next.
Seven questions separate those two outcomes. They are ordinary questions, they are reasonable to ask before you pay anything, and any firm that cannot answer them plainly is telling you something useful.
Seven questions to ask before you hire
Ask them in the first call rather than the last one. The answers reveal more in ten minutes than a portfolio ever will.
How many matters like mine are you handling this year?
Not how many years of experience, and not how large the firm is — how many matters resembling yours are currently live. A partner who has closed forty similar transactions can describe your risks in specifics. One who has closed two will describe them in generalities.
Who will actually do the work?
Ask for the name of the person handling the file, not the partner who took the call. Then ask how much of it they do personally. A clear answer, including the parts that go to other people, is what you are looking for.
Which jurisdiction governs this?
Egyptian law, English law, New York law and the law of the country where the counterparty sits can produce different answers to the same question. Confirm that the firm is authorised and current in the jurisdiction that will decide your matter.
How do you charge, and what does it include?
Ask for the structure — hourly, fixed, staged or success-based — and then ask what falls outside it. Disputes on legal fees are usually caused by scope that was never written down, not by the rate itself.
What is the realistic timeline?
Ask when the first deliverable will exist, not when everything will be finished. Counsel who explains the sequence — what depends on what, and what they need from you — is telling you how they manage work rather than how they manage impressions.
What are the main risks you see already?
The first assessment matters more than any later document. If the opening analysis is entirely reassuring, you are not getting advice. What you want is the uncomfortable question, asked early and stated plainly.
What happens if this goes wrong?
Complaints, professional conduct, and what recourse you have are legitimate topics for a first conversation. How they are handled is a fair indicator of how they behave when something is difficult.
Write the answers down while they are being given. You will want them later — not to hold anyone to a promise made in passing, but because the shape of the answers tells you what kind of working relationship you are about to enter.
Five answers that should end the conversation
Guaranteed outcomes
No one can guarantee the result of a matter that depends on a counterparty, a court or a regulator. A promise of success is either naive or designed to close, and either way it is not advice.
No jurisdiction named
A firm that cannot state clearly which body governs your matter is working from general familiarity. General familiarity is not a substitute for authority in the right place.
Fees explained only on request
If pricing is vague at the stage of enquiry, expect it to stay vague at the stage of invoicing. Clarity about cost at the start is a reasonable expectation, not an awkward question.
Pressure to decide immediately
Urgency that comes from the firm rather than from your problem is a closing tactic. Real deadlines are explained, with the reason attached.
Nobody senior will touch the file
Being handed to a junior with no named supervisor is acceptable only if the supervision is described. Blanket delegation with no stated review is a different arrangement entirely.
Conversely, so is a reason not to hire. A firm may be excellent in corporate law and wrong for your matter, out of capacity, or conflicted. Being turned away for the right reason is a good outcome: it costs you one conversation and saves you the problems that follow a mismatch.
What to settle in writing before the work starts
| Point to confirm | Why it matters later |
|---|---|
| Scope of the work | Defines what is included, and therefore what will be charged as additional. |
| Named responsible lawyer | Gives you someone specific to escalate to, and identifies who is accountable. |
| Fee structure and billing cycle | Prevents disputes that otherwise appear at the worst possible moment. |
| Key dates and dependencies | Puts your obligations and theirs in the same place, including what they need from you. |
| Confidentiality and conflicts position | Confirms the firm has checked it can act, and that information is protected as described. |
None of this needs to feel formal or adversarial. The firms worth instructing are entirely comfortable with it, and generally prefer it to a client who signs first and objects later.
If you are still comparing names, a short consultation is usually more informative than another hour of reading. Tell them the situation as it actually is, not the version you think they will find interesting, and ask the seven questions.
Tell us what happened. We will tell you where you stand.
The first message does not commit you to anything. It gets the file read, and it gets you an honest answer about whether we are the right firm for the matter.
010 1704 7034 · shokryaelatif@gmail.com