Low-ball estimates typically come with a dozen or so caveats attached, which the lawyer assumes will make the estimate nonbinding under less than ideal circumstances. Clients concerned about low-ball estimates will insist that estimates be binding and in writing. This critical analysis can be made by in-house counsel or another experienced lawyer giving a second opinion. Playing one firm's estimate against another as part of the selection process may have the same effect. Caveats added by the lawyer to subvert the estimation process or minimize risk due to a low estimate will either be removed or ignored by the client or all competing lawyers will be given the chance to comment upon or estimate based on the same assumptions.
Clients are likely to reject estimates with unrealistic or excessive caveats.
The attorney-client agreement may also provide mechanisms for controlling additional fees allegedly excused by a caveat, e.g., by limiting overruns to a certain percentage of the total fee or by requiring prior notice and an updated estimate whenever the lawyer intends to argue that a caveat has undermined the original estimate. There are three ways clients can avoid the tendency of lawyers to undermine estimates by inflating them. First, clients can make estimates part of the selection process, when firms know they are competing and competitive pressure will keep estimates down. Second, as with the low-ball estimate, clients can analyze the estimate critically, but this time for signs of fat. Third, if the estimate provides a ceiling, clients may still manage fees to keep them below estimates.