Concern was raised this week over the way the Association of Law Costs Draftsmen (ALCD) operates after it rescinded a unanimous finding made against members.

In the latest twist in the high-profile dispute between supermodel Naomi Campbell and Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN), the firm of costs draftsmen drawing up solicitor and own client bills for MGN's solicitors, Davenport Lyons, then agreed to act for Ms Campbell's solicitors, Schillings, in the detailed assessment of their costs.


Masters Legal Costs Services informed Davenport Lyons of this but then refused a request to stop acting for Schillings on the advice of counsel. Davenport Lyons then stopped instructing the draftsman concerned and some time later complained to the ALCD that there was at least the appearance of providing an unfair advantage. Different Masters staff had acted for each party and it is understood that Chinese walls were erected.


In an initial finding last July, the ALCD's council decided unanimously that Masters had breached paragraphs 21 and 22 of its code of conduct - one relating to conflicts, the other to 'unfair advantages' obtained through professional or social associations. It said there was a 'clear conflict' and the appearance of an unfair advantage.


While it described the breaches as serious, the council - which only has jurisdiction over those costs draftsmen who are ALCD members - decided they were not sufficient to warrant a reference to its complaints and disciplinary tribunal.


But it ordered its members at Masters to stop acting in the case, warned them of their future conduct in similar situations and told them to provide an undertaking to seek the council's advice if such circumstances arose again. All but one of Masters' partners are ALCD members.


Although not formally appealed, the decision was challenged in private and confidential representations made by Masters' solicitors, London firm Carter-Ruck, on what are understood to have been substantive, procedural and jurisdictional grounds. The ALCD did not disclose either the nature or content of these representations to Davenport Lyons or MGN.


The decision was rescinded last October, and the ALCD instead issued a 'reminder' to Masters of the need to be careful when undertaking work where a perceived conflict of interest might arise.


Neither Davenport Lyons nor MGN received notification of the rescission and, when they did find out about it, the ALCD through its solicitors refused to provide them with its grounds, despite repeated requests.


MGN head of legal Marcus Partington said: 'I have never come across a situation such as this, where a professional body has flouted the basic rules of natural justice so blatantly. The conclusion I have drawn is that the ALCD is a not a body the public can have confidence in, in terms of dealing fairly and openly with complaints against its members based on its code of conduct.'


ALCD chairman John Hocking told the Gazette that any failure to notify Davenport Lyons and MGN of the decision to rescind must have been an 'oversight'. He said full details were provided in the past week, although he accepted that it would have been 'helpful' if that had happened earlier. Mr Hocking said the ALCD had taken leading counsel's advice on Carter-Ruck's challenge.


The ALCD is a voluntary body formed in 1977 with the object of promoting the status and interests of the profession and maintaining the highest professional standards. The Department for Constitutional Affairs has recently accepted an application to allow the ALCD to grant its members rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation, and is in the process of implementing the change.


It is not known how many costs draftsmen are not ALCD members. Mr Hocking said: 'We believe it is in the best interests of the public and the profession that law costs draftsmen should be regulated.'


Former Law Society President Tony Girling, a costs expert, commented that as costs draftsmen are treated as representatives of solicitors, it is important for solicitors to know they adhere to a professional code consistent with their own duties. The need for proper regulation would become even more pressing once they are given rights of audience of their own, he added.