Appeal court: give clients fee details

Solicitors should provide clients with a detailed computer print-out of how their fees are broken down, the Court of Appeal has said.

The suggestion came in Ralph Hume Garry v Gwillim, in which a City lawyer tried to have a bill, rendered by solicitors he was using in a partnership dispute, declared unenforcable on the grounds that they provided insufficient detail on the work done.

Lord Justice Ward said: 'I add this postscript for the profession's consideration so that an unseemly dispute of this kind does not happen again.

Surely in 2002, every second of time spent, certainly on contentious business, is recorded on the account department's computer with a description of the fee-earner, the rate of charging and some description of the work done.

'A copy of the print-out, adjusted as may be necessary to remove items recorded for administrative purposes but not chargeable to the client, could so easily be rendered and all the problems that have arisen here would be avoided.

In these days where there seems to be a need for transparency in all things, is a print-out not the least a client is entitled to expect?'

After an examination of how the law relating to solicitors' bills has developed over almost 300 years, Lord Justice Ward earlier decided that, under the Solicitors Act 1974, a client could successfully challenge an action to enforce a bill if 'there is insufficient narrative in the bill to identify what it is he is being charged for, and [if] he does not have sufficient knowledge from other documents in his possession or from what he has been told reasonably to take advice whether or not to apply for that bill to be taxed'.

In the case of David Gwillim - now a construction litigation partner at City firm Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw - the appeal court upheld Mr Justice Tomlinson's decision not to strike out the claim as there was a real prospect of establishing at trial that Mr Gwillim knew all he needed to know about the work and charging basis to make this decision.

In 1998, Mr Gwillim instructed Ralph Hume Garry - a niche litigation firm which dissolved last year - over a dispute in which he sought to extricate himself from his former firm, Winward Fearon in London.

The case ended in an arbitration in which the arbitrator made a costs order against Mr Gwillim of around 200,000 (although he recovered 84,000 as due to him for leaving the partnership).

Ralph Hume Garry charged Mr Gwillim 215,819, of which 87,883 was paid.

The firm sued for the outstanding 127,935 plus interest, and Mr Gwillim counterclaimed for negligence.

However, in September 2001, six weeks before the trial, Mr Gwillim applied to strike out the claim on the grounds that the bill failed to comply with the Solicitors Act.

Following the Court of Appeal ruling, it is likely the fees claim and counterclaim for negligence will now be restarted.

Mr Gwillim would not comment on an ongoing matter.

He was represented on a pro bono basis by Philip Newman of 22 Old Buildings.

The former partners of Ralph Hume Garry did not wish to comment.

They are advised by Barlow Lyde & Gilbert.

Neil Rose