I had a good client i.e. excellent company that was a pain because their office manager would just be slow to pay everyone...a classical cheap accountant. The company was swimming in money so it was not a case of them not having enough in their account (it was a professional sports organization). He just liked to pay everyone 60 or 90 days just because of his personality. I knew this ahead of time as I was referred to the company by a company insider who said to watch out for this and to not be surprised.

So we worked off a retainer. I would say that was not "normal" and I agree with you Al and that it can cause a perception problem with the client. In this case, it did not matter because the head boss wanted the work done and he would sign off on anything (reasonable). It just had to be set up to protect me from the bean counting accountant. This was back in the days when you could make decent interest on term deposits and so I figure he just loved to make a bit extra interest.

But there was a downside to it as well - I started to do work for one of their associated leagues and I also asked for a retainer. Once when I did not deliver some work on my side (partly because they were not paid up and partly because I was juggling too many balls) when asked I said I was waiting for the next retainer - wrong answer, I guess this had stuck in their "gall" and they said "forget it" and told me to quit working on the project. Because I was dealing with a different office, I just treated them all the same as "bean counting Herb" and I should not have.

Anyhow, those are my ramblings. You sortof gotta know how your client might respond to the request (if it is not normal practice in the industry or country).

Albert

>>Hi,
>>
>>I need to change my standard contract slightly and I'm not sure how to word this:
>>
>>Client will pay a retainer fee covering 20 hours and work will be charged against that retainer, then when that 20 hours has been fully worked off another retainer will be paid.
>>
>>Anyone can help me word this clearly? I'm feeling very wordically challenged at the moment :)
>
>You can find examples by Googling [retainer agreement sample] e.g. https://www.docracy.com/7kjozeinrv/retainer-agreement#
>
>In Western countries there are a few occupations/industries where working on a retainer basis is normal practice, most often when clients are at high risk of not paying (or not being able to pay) e.g. criminal lawyers. However, outside of those, there are at least a couple of potential appearance problems with having a retainer clause in a standard contract:
>
>- It makes it look like your company deals regularly or mostly with shady or less than desirable clients who won't or can't pay their bills on time
>
>- It implies that a new or potential client is one of those, which quite a few business owners will view as a direct insult
>
>If retainers are standard in your industry, well and good, but if not I'd be leery about adding such a clause to a standard contract.
>
>What I do instead for new clients with whom I'm likely to do significant work, is to ask for at least 3 trade references. These are third parties who have billed, and been paid in (presumably) good order, by your new or potential client. Ideally they can offer up other suppliers similar to yourself, but other references such as their landlord can be good too. There's zero stigma attached to asking for trade references, it's the equivalent of a client asking you for work or product references and business people recognize it as such.
>
>A few years back I had a problem client who was doing the whole gamut of dumbass tricks - very late to pay, wrong (too little, of course) cheque amount, cheque numeric amount not matching written string (e.g. $750, "Five Hundred Seventy Dollars Only"), cheque drawn on a closed account, cheque not signed etc. etc. My accountant suggested putting him on retainer, but it was so unpleasant dealing with that guy that I fired him soon after.