Costs lawyers have called for a return to the 1990s with a proposed procedure designed to end expensive court battles over solicitor bills.

The Association of Costs Lawyers said it wanted to work with the Law Society and legal ombudsman to revive the system implemented by the Solicitors’ (Non-Contentious Business) Remuneration Order 1994. The procedure, revoked in 2009, required a solicitor’s costs to be fair and accurate, and gave clients the opportunity to seek a ‘remuneration certificate’ from the Law Society where total costs were less than £50,000. The Society would then, in appropriate cases, issue a certificate stating what it believed would be a fair and reasonable amount for the client to pay.

The ACL has suggested that a return to this process could act as an alternative way for clients to challenge solicitors’ bills and submitted this idea to the Civil Justice Council as part of its costs review.

The review closed last year but was reopened temporarily in the light of issues raised by the Court of Appeal decision in Belsner. In that ruling, master of the rolls Sir Geoffrey Vos criticised the costs incurred through bill disputes over relatively small amounts reaching court and said these matters were better suited for the legal ombudsman.

The ACL’s response says that the current situation under which solicitor-client disputes have proceeded in the High Court is ‘not sensible’, particularly given the number of such cases being handled by the likes of costs recovery firm checkmylegalfees.com.

Instead, it suggests that the previous methodology for dealing with these disputes could be modernised and reintroduced. ‘The ACL would propose a form of collaboration with the Law Society and legal ombudsman whereby an independent panel of cost lawyers and other cost specialists could deal with lower-value disputes on the papers,’ the response states. ‘This would provide a clear process for clients whilst ensuring that significant resources are not expended by HM Courts & Tribunals Service.’

ACL vice-chair David Bailey-Vella added that the Court of Appeal in Belsner had made it clear that disputes over lower-value bills should not ‘clog up’ the courts. He also questioned whether the ombudsman had the capacity to handle the potential extra work that might be created by shifting costs disputes.

He continued: ‘Using the expertise and specialism of ACL members – who are fully regulated lawyers – to reintroduce an updated remuneration certificate procedure offers a compromise that would work for both clients and solicitors alike.’

 

This article is now closed for comment.