A recent 'Conduct and Service' column reported on a firm of solicitors that had seemingly fallen foul of a 'pro bono trap' (see [2006] Gazette, 21 April, 26).

I am no longer particularly surprised by the consequences of the over-regulation of our profession, but it astonishes me that a firm should be fined (since compensation awarded to the client amounts to no more than that) for an apparent breach of client care and costs information on the basis of the facts of this case study.


In this case, the solicitors suggested that there was no retainer because they had not charged the 'client' and had only sought to help him (as we are regularly encouraged to do) on a pro bono basis. A key piece of evidence to confirm the retainer was apparently the fact that the letter written to the Benefits Agency for the client had used the words 'our client'. It seems to me that a solicitor is hardly likely to write to anyone on behalf of his 'client' and start the letter along the lines of: 'We are not instructed by... but.'


The article does not relate why it was that the solicitors did not want to act for the client on a second occasion, which is unfortunate because it may well have helped to understand why a complaint to the Consumer Complaints Service arose.


However, this sort of bureaucratic nonsense is a sure way to drive solicitors out of the pro bono market. After all, a client for whom you had acted pro bono would surely not expect to receive a large quantity of paper telling him all about client care and costs. It is entirely illogical that a solicitor should be required to provide costs information to a client who is not paying and never will pay.


The client will think the solicitor mad and perhaps worry that he will be charged at some point.


I fully understand that if I give the wrong free advice, I may be sued. However, I had not thought I might be in a position of having to compensate a client (or non-client) for declining to act for him.


Andrew Kirkconel, Bell Pope, Southampton