Hacker News Reader

I saw this as a veiled threat from the Clerk that they'd drop the barristers as clients - in other words the clerk wouldn't ask for a penny more compensation because he wouldn't be passing the barristers any more work.

View on HN

Indeed. And in this veiled threat contained a promise that as long as the fee [10%] was paid, the Clerk would continue to work without problem or hassle.

In making so, the cost/risk of the Clerk was minimised compared, in modern language, to changing vendor. There were no more hidden costs.

No idea why you were downvoted.

That's an interesting interpretation that did not occur to me. Thanks!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com