---
title: "Model a percentage-based legal costs order against the funding alternatives"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/class-actions-representative-proceedings/model-a-percentage-based-legal-costs-order-against-the-funding-alternati"
type: "task"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A7-D20261018-8"
practice_area: "Class Actions / Representative Proceedings"
tier: "red"
lawyer_review: "required"
last_reviewed: "2026-10-22"
---

# Model a percentage-based legal costs order against the funding alternatives

> From the claim value estimates, the budget and the funding terms on offer, calculate the return to class members under each structure the lawyer specifies (a percentage-based legal costs order at the rates the lawyer…

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/class-actions-representative-proceedings/model-a-percentage-based-legal-costs-order-against-the-funding-alternati  
Last reviewed: 2026-10-22

Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Class Actions / Representative Proceedings](https://ailawframework.com/practice/class-actions-representative-proceedings.md) |
| Human involvement | Red: Lawyer writes; AI may check, clarify or collect data |
| How AI is used | From the claim value estimates, the budget and the funding terms on offer, calculate the return to class members under each structure the lawyer specifies (a percentage-based legal costs order at the rates the lawyer sets, third-party funding at the offered commission, and an unfunded or hourly-rate scenario) across the outcome range, and tabulate the results with every input cited. The tool writes nothing in the application or submissions. |
| What the lawyer must review | The lawyer decides whether the forum permits a percentage-based legal costs order at all, which rate to propose and why, what security and adverse costs arrangements go with it, and prepares the application, evidence and submissions. |
| Written for / versions | 1 jurisdiction versions below |

## Checking plan

**Lawyer-led judgement**

The lawyer makes the substantive assessment. Any permitted AI assistance remains supporting work with its own checks.

- What the AI does: From the claim value estimates, the budget and the funding terms on offer, calculate the return to class members under each structure the lawyer specifies (a percentage-based legal costs order at the rates the lawyer sets, third-party funding at the offered commission, and an unfunded or hourly-rate scenario) across the outcome range, and tabulate the results with every input cited. The tool writes nothing in the application or submissions.
- What the lawyer does: The lawyer decides whether the forum permits a percentage-based legal costs order at all, which rate to propose and why, what security and adverse costs arrangements go with it, and prepares the application, evidence and submissions.
- Who reviews: Responsible lawyer with competence in the matter
- Basis: Practical workflow informed by the linked primary sources; the traffic light and working checks are editorial guidance, not a court classification.
- Why: The level reflects what the work is, the consequence of an error, and how much of the output the lawyer must independently re-derive.
- Restriction: The lawyer makes the substantive assessment. Any permitted AI assistance remains supporting work with its own checks.

## Checks the lawyer makes

1. Confirm the forum before modelling a percentage-based legal fee.
2. Check every input against its source: the budget, the funding offer and the lawyer’s outcome range.
3. Confirm the scenarios are the ones the lawyer specified and none was added by the tool.

## Notes

- These are suggested working checks. Confirm the required checking with the responsible lawyer before work starts; the checking approach does not establish permission to use AI.

## Sources

- [Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) s 33ZDA — Group costs orders](https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/sca1986183/s33zda.html) (checked 2026-10-18)
- [Supreme Court of Victoria — SC Gen 10 Conduct of Group Proceedings (Class Actions)](https://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/areas/legal-resources/practice-notes/sc-gen-10-conduct-of-group-proceedings-class-actions-second) (checked 2026-10-18)
- [Allens — High Court clarifies limits on class action Common Fund Orders (Kain v R&B Investments Pty Ltd, August 2025)](https://www.allens.com.au/insights-news/insights/2025/08/high-court-clarifies-limits-on-class-action-common-fund-orders/) (checked 2026-10-18)

## Forms and precedents for this task

| Form or precedent | Kind | AI level | Summary |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| [Group costs order: comparison note before a Victorian s 33ZDA application](https://ailawframework.com/precedents/class-actions-representative-proceedings/group-costs-order-comparison.md) | Memo | Red | Note for a proposed Supreme Court of Victoria group costs order: the statutory test, what the order does to adverse costs and security, and the practice note's timing and scope. |

Signed-in accounts can read the full text of each one.

## Jurisdiction versions

| Jurisdiction | Level |
| --- | --- |
| [United States](https://ailawframework.com/practice/class-actions-representative-proceedings/model-a-percentage-based-legal-costs-order-against-the-funding-alternati/united-states.md) | Red |

*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*