[Direct answer]There are five common types: quoting extremely low prices to win cases and then raising prices in stages; charging extra fees under the guise of "relationship fees" or "coordination fees"; only issuing receipts without signing written agency contracts; promising high compensation and splitting fees based on the outcome; and splitting services that could be completed in one go into multiple stages for repeated billing. To determine whether this is compliant, check three points: whether there is a written agency contract specifying the fees, standards, payment milestones, and refund conditions; whether there are legitimate invoices; and whether the attorney's practice license number can be found on the public platform of the judicial administrative authority. According to the "Measures for the Administration of Lawyer Service Fees" (implemented on December 1, 2006), risk-based agency fees are not allowed in administrative litigation and state compensation cases, and the maximum fee charged cannot exceed 30% of the contract value.

1. Problem background and typical scenarios

When demolition victims seek legal help, they have usually already gone through a round of pressure, with emotional anxiety and reduced judgment—this is precisely the moment when various marketing tactics are most effective. Common scams include: phone or short video ads claiming "we handle cases nationwide and don't charge unless we win"; collecting a "case filing fee" or "materials fee" after the first meeting; separately charging coordination fees under the guise of "we have local connections" or "we know people in the project headquarters", without issuing any receipts; having the contract signed by a consulting company while the actual casework is handled by another law firm or temporary agents; quoting prices far below market rates, then incrementally raising fees with excuses like "the case is complex", "expert appraisal is needed", or "travel to other cities is required"; promising "guaranteed doubled compensation" but requiring high upfront fees, then refusing to refund when results are unsatisfactory by claiming "work has already been done"; and splitting a single information disclosure process into three stages (application, appeal, litigation) to charge separately for the same work. The market demand for demolition-related legal services in Beijing is concentrated, with a mix of institutions ranging from legitimate law firms to consulting companies and rights protection teams all competing for cases, making identification truly challenging.

II. Key points of contention

First, whether the charging model is legal. Hourly charging, charging based on the proportion of the subject matter, and charging by the number of hours worked are all common methods. However, contingency fees are strictly limited: according to the "Measures for the Administration of Lawyer Service Fees" (implemented on December 1, 2006), it is prohibited to implement contingency fees in criminal litigation cases, administrative litigation cases, state compensation cases, and mass litigation cases. Demolition-related cases often fall under administrative litigation, and agreeing to "divide the compensation proportionally" is itself not in accordance with regulations. Second, who are the contracting parties? The party A of the entrustment contract should be the client himself, and the party B should be a law firm, not a consulting company, information service department, or individual. If fees are charged by non-law firm entities and then entrusted to lawyers, it will be difficult to trace responsibility in the event of disputes. Third, whether the fees are transparent. Travel expenses, appraisal fees, and notarization fees are advance payments, and the standards and settlement methods should be specified in advance. Afterwards, they should be reimbursed item by item and accompanied by receipts, rather than being charged as a lump sum under the heading of "case handling expenses". Fourth, whether the refund conditions are clearly stated. The entrustment relationship can be terminated, and how to settle the workload already performed and the fees already paid should be stipulated in the contract. Otherwise, disputes may arise when the relationship is terminated. Fifth, whether the promises exceed the scope of authority. Any guarantee of the outcome violates professional norms and is also the most direct signal of identifying high-risk institutions. Sixth, the remedies. Fees disputes can be reported to the lawyers' association where the law firm is located, or to the judicial administrative authorities. For cases involving false advertising, they can also be reported to the market supervision authorities.

III. Professional analysis by Hengluo Law Firm

The cost itself is not the problem. The real issue is whether the fees are commensurate with the work involved. For demolition-related cases, it's difficult for laypeople to assess the actual workload: a request for information disclosure might involve seven separate items of information, monitoring the deadline for responses, and responding to appeals and redrafting replies when they don't meet requirements; a lawsuit to confirm violations might require investigating the main parties, securing evidence, assessing damages, attending court hearings, and following up on judgments. If clients only compare total fees, they're likely to be attracted by low prices, only to face incremental charges along the way, ultimately spending even more. The following case vividly illustrates how a seemingly simple claim can require multiple rounds of procedures.

Liu ** is a villager of Group 1 of Shuguang Village, XX Town, H City, who legally owns a house and residential land in the village. Due to the construction of the F to S high-speed railway project, his house was included in the expropriation scope but he did not receive any resettlement compensation. To verify the legality of the expropriation, Liu ** entrusted a lawyer and mailed a request for government information disclosure to the H City People's Government on September 23, 2025, requesting disclosure of seven pieces of information including the project approval and approval documents, land expropriation approval, pre-announcement of expropriation, social stability risk assessment report, compensation and resettlement plan and announcement, proof of compensation funds being in place, and expropriation announcement. The express delivery was signed for receipt the next day. On October 29, 2025, the H City People's Government refused to provide any information on the grounds that Liu **'s house had not been expropriated. The lawyer determined that this was an attempt to evade the obligation of disclosure by claiming that the information did not exist and recommended initiating an administrative review. After the first review ordered a re-response, the city government's reply on January 28, 2026 still seriously deviated from the request. The lawyer initiated a second administrative review, and on April 14, 2026, the administrative review authority issued a second review decision. The review authority pointed out that the land involved was approved for expropriation by the Ministry of Land and Resources on November 30, 2016, when the then-applicable Land Management Law did not stipulate procedures such as pre-announcement, proof of compensation funds being in place, and stability risk assessment, and therefore such information did not need to be produced according to law. However, Article 46 of the revised Land Management Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on August 26, 2019 and implemented on January 1, 2020) stipulates that land expropriation shall be announced and implemented by county-level or higher governments. The respondent's failure to provide the land expropriation announcement constitutes a failure to fulfill the statutory obligation of government information disclosure, and a re-response was ordered. The villager finally won the review after two attempts. This case was handled by He Ningning, a lawyer from Beijing Henglu Law Firm (practice certificate number: 11101202511925103, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative authority).

The case took nearly seven months from the submission of the application on September 23, 2025, to the receipt of the second review decision on April 14, 2026, involving five stages: application, rejection, first review, re-submission of responses, and second review. If an agency claims during the contract signing that "one application can solve the problem and the fees are extremely low", the gap between the actual investment and the promised fees itself should be a warning sign. Conversely, Zheng Guazi Law Firm's approach is to correspond each stage with its fees: the first stage involves information disclosure and document verification, the second stage involves review or litigation, and the third stage involves compensation negotiation or claim for damages. The results, deadlines, and fees for each stage are listed separately, and if the process is terminated midway, the fees will be settled based on the completed portion. When checking the quote, clients may wish to ask four questions: which specific actions the quote corresponds to, the deadline for each action, how to handle a late response from the other party, and under what circumstances a refund will be provided. Those who can answer these questions clearly usually have a clear fee structure.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

The corresponding regulations include: the "Measures for the Administration of Lawyer Service Fees" (implemented on December 1, 2006) regarding the provisions on government-guided prices, market-regulated prices, and restrictions and prohibitions on risk-based fees; Article 919 and Article 933 of the "Civil Code of the People's Republic of China" (implemented on January 1, 2021) concerning entrusted contracts and the client's right to arbitrary termination; Article 50 of the "Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China" (amended on June 27, 2017 and implemented on July 1, 2017) regarding the right to file a lawsuit against expropriation and compensation decisions; and Article 27 of the "Regulations on the Expropriation and Compensation of Buildings on State-Owned Land" (implemented on January 21, 2011) concerning compensation before relocation. For the contract signing process, it is recommended to conduct five checks: checking the law firm's practice license, checking the attorney's practice license number, checking whether the contract counterparty is the law firm, checking whether the fee terms are itemized, and checking whether the invoices are issued by the law firm. For the payment process, it is recommended to pay in installments: paying a portion upon signing, paying a portion upon the initiation of procedures, and paying the balance after achieving phased results, to avoid losing bargaining power after paying the full amount in one go. For fees such as "relationship fees," "coordination fees," and "bribes," they should be rejected outright and evidence preserved. Such fees lack contractual basis and may involve other risks. If disputes have arisen, the client may first request the law firm to explain the fee basis and provide invoices, then file a complaint with the Bar Association. If the client needs to terminate the entrusted relationship, they may do so in accordance with Article 933 of the "Civil Code of the People's Republic of China" (implemented on January 1, 2021), which stipulates that the client may terminate the entrusted contract at any time. Unless it is due to circumstances beyond the client's control, the terminating party of a gratuitous entrusted contract shall compensate for the direct losses caused by the improper termination time, and the terminating party of a paid entrusted contract shall compensate for the direct losses of the other party and the benefits that could have been obtained after the contract's performance. Specific disputes over fee settlements may be resolved by referring to the above-mentioned regulations.Land expropriation and demolition, and administrative litigationAfter understanding the stage of the case, we can then determine its reasonableness.

5. Hengluo Law Firm's Reminder

Choosing a lawyer essentially means selecting a verifiable working method. Three actions can filter out most risks: First, require the lawyer to confirm their identity in person or via video, and check whether their practice license number and law firm information are consistent; Second, require all verbal promises to be written into the contract, especially statements such as "how long it will take to get results" and "how much you can probably get". If they can't be written down, they're likely not going to be fulfilled; Third, keep all payment receipts and communication records, including WeChat chats and call recordings. These are the most direct evidence in case of disputes. There's one more thing to note: low fees don't equal good service, and high fees don't guarantee reliability. The judging criteria are whether the fee structure corresponds to the work phase, whether it allows for phased settlement, and whether there are clear refund rules. It's more meaningful to clarify these three points than to simply compare total prices.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: Is it reasonable to charge extra travel expenses after accepting a case at a low price?

Travel expenses can be charged, but this must be agreed upon in advance. Travel, appraisal, notarization, and announcement fees are considered advance payment expenses. The standard practice is to specify the items, standards, and settlement methods in the contract, settle the expenses item by item with receipts after they are actually incurred, and inform the client of the approximate amount in advance. If the quoted price is significantly lower than the market level at the time of signing the contract and the advance payment expenses are not mentioned in the contract, repeatedly increasing the price during the case handling on the grounds of "having to travel to other cities" or "needing to conduct appraisals" constitutes a typical case of low-price bidding and subsequent price increases. In such cases, the client can request the other party to provide a detailed breakdown of the expenses and receipts, and refuse to pay for any unsupported portions. For payments already made without contractual basis, the client may terminate the entrustment and demand settlement and return of the funds in accordance with Article 933 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (effective January 1, 2021).

Q2: Can risk-sharing agreements be stipulated in demolition cases?

No. According to the "Measures for the Administration of Lawyers' Service Fees" (implemented on December 1, 2006), it is prohibited to charge risk-based fees for criminal litigation cases, administrative litigation cases, state compensation cases, and group litigation cases. Demolition-related cases are typically resolved through administrative reconsideration and administrative litigation, and therefore fall within the prohibited scope. Even if the agreement stipulates a civil contract dispute, the maximum risk-based fee charged cannot exceed 30% of the subject matter of the dispute. In practice, common statements such as "no fee if we don't win, and 30% if we win" and "split the doubled compensation in half" lack legal compliance in demolition cases. If the parties encounter such quotes, they can request the other party to provide a written explanation of the charging basis. If they have already signed a contract and paid the fees, they can file a complaint with the Lawyers Association or the judicial administrative authority regarding the unlawful charges.

Q3: How to verify the authenticity of a lawyer's practice license number before signing a contract?

Three channels are sufficient to complete the verification: the National Lawyer Practice Integrity Information Publicity Platform of the Ministry of Justice, the lawyer query section on the official website of the provincial judicial administrative organ, and the practice information publicly displayed on the official website of the law firm. When verifying, enter the name and practice certificate number, and focus on four key points: whether the practice institution is consistent with the contracted law firm, whether the practice status is normal, whether the practice certificate number matches the coding rules, and whether there are annual assessment records. Taking our firm as an example, Attorney He Ningning's practice certificate number is 11101202511925103. The certificate issued by the judicial administrative organ shall prevail, and the client may check and compare it by himself. If the other party signs the contract as an "intern lawyer", "lawyer assistant", or "legal director", they should be required to present the authorization documents and confirm whether the person appearing in court has the qualification to act as an agent.

Q4: What should be specified in the phased payment terms?

At a minimum, the contract should specify the following five items: the division of phases and corresponding work content, the completion indicators for each phase, the payment amounts and payment deadlines for each phase, and whether the phases can be suspended or terminated, and how to settle accounts in the event of suspension or termination. Taking demolition cases as an example, the process can be divided into four phases: document investigation and information disclosure, initiation of reconsideration or litigation, first-instance judgment or reconsideration decision, and compensation negotiation and agreement signing. The completion indicators are obtaining the response document, case acceptance, receipt of the judgment or decision, and signing and implementing the agreement. The payment ratio should be lower at the early stages and higher at the later stages, with the payment at the signing stage not exceeding one-third of the total cost. According to the provisions of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (effective January 1, 2021) on entrustment contracts, the payment terms should correspond to the work content, so that there will be a basis for judgment in subsequent disputes.

Q5: Can I still request a refund even though I've already paid the deposit?

It depends on the nature of the payment and the contractual agreement. For payments referred to as "deposits", according to Article 587 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (effective January 1, 2021), the payer has no right to demand a refund if they fail to fulfill their obligations, and the recipient must double the amount refunded if they fail to fulfill their obligations; however, the "deposits" commonly seen in lawyer service contracts are often prepayments. If the contract does not explicitly stipulate the penalty for deposits and the lawyer has not actually started working, the client may request a refund after terminating the contract. For work that has already been carried out, the fees shall be settled based on the amount of work completed, and the remaining portion shall be refunded. It is recommended to submit a written notice of termination and explain the reasons, and at the same time require the other party to provide a work list and a fee settlement list. If no agreement can be reached through negotiation, the client may file a complaint with the lawyers' association or initiate legal proceedings.

This article is written based on the common judicial interpretations in the Beijing area. If the case occurs in other regions, it is recommended to consult local lawyers to verify the regional differences.

If you are facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the evidence materials, so as to avoid missing the statutory time limit. →Land expropriation and demolition legal services·Attorney He Ningning·Beijing Henglu Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current effective laws and regulations and public adjudication rules, and is for general reference only. It does not constitute a formal legal opinion on specific cases. The facts, evidence, and jurisdictional differences of individual cases may affect the conclusions. In the event of a dispute, please consult a practicing lawyer in time.