Most solicitors will now be aware of the Court of Appeal decision in the case of Pilbrow and Pearless de Rougemont on 17 March 1999.

The client telephoned the firm and asked to see a solicitor about some personal problems.

An appointment was made.

The case was conducted and total costs incurred of £2,600.

Only after being presented with a final bill did the client learn that the person who had carried out the work on his behalf was not a solicitor.

The court held that there was total non-performance of the contract and the client was absolved from any obligation to pay.

A reading of the judgment suggests that it is now a fundamental term of a contractual retainer for the provision of legal services by a solicitor that the services are provided by a solicitor unless otherwise agreed by the client.

How confident are you that your receptionists always monitor and recall whether a new client has said: 'I would like to see a solicitor' rather than 'I need some legal advice'.

Of course they do not remember which was said; nor will the clients, unless -- having read about Pilbrow -- it suits them to become sure that they specifically requested a solicitor.

Like any fable, there is a moral.

Had a client care letter been sent in compliance with practice rule 15, all should have been well.

This serves as a reminder to all solicitors to re-visit their client care procedures in readiness for the introduction of the new and more stringent practice rule 15 which takes effect on 3 September (see [1999] Gazette 24 March, 36-37).

But what about the interview, and possibly other work, carried out by a non- solicitor before the client care letter is sent? Solicitors' firms may have no right to fees for tha t work.

Lord Justice Schiemann suggested a complicated formula for receptionists to adopt.

I view it as hopelessly unrealistic for use in a busy office.

In any event, the judge accepted that it was enough that any non-solicitor fee earner explains who he or she is on first contact with the client.

Why not issue all fee earners with business cards with their status printed on them to hand to clients on first greeting them? Ensure too that the client care letter explains that other members of staff may do work on the case as circumstances require.

Fortunately, the judgment acknowledges the right to delegate work to others 'be they typists, legal executives or whatever' but it makes clear that there must be actual or implied consent.

Many firms only supply the client with the hourly rate of the fee earner who takes on the case.

Why not set out the rates for all grades of staff to avoid separate notification being needed if, for example, a partner covers a junior fee earner's file while the latter is on holiday.

When provided with these details at the outset, the fact that the non-solicitor is a cheaper option may stifle any objection the client might have raised to being palmed off with someone whose name is not on the letterhead.

Take great care about the use of the term 'legal executive'.

This can only be used to describe a Fellow of the Institute of Legal Executives.

If a solicitor introduces an unqualified member of staff to a client as a legal executive and the client finds out that the fee-earner is not a Fellow, then it would seem that the law firm would have no entitlement to fees once again.

The profession cannot complain about this judgment.

If you went as a privately paying patient to have an intimate examination by a doctor and subsequently discovered that the person in the white coat had no medical qualifications, would you consider it reasonable to have to pay? Only a reading of the full judgment can demonstrate the tortuous legality behind it.

Was this a case of defective performance of a contract or non- performance? Remember that distinction next time you order a pint of Guinness and, as you drain the glass, you realise it was Murphy's.

You cannot claim a free drink.