Conduct and service

Costs risk/benefitThe Law Society's Costs Information & Client Care Code requires solicitors to consider with the client whether the risk in costs which is involved in any proposed action is justified by the potential benefit.This assumes even greater importance where it is possible that the client is proceeding on what he perceives to be a matter of principle.As the requirement is now that costs information should be given in writing, it follows that any costs risk/ benefit analysis should also be given or confirmed in writing.

This should avoid the risk of future disagreement between the solicitor and the client about what had been said.This was illustrated in a complaint by Mr M against AB & Co.

After a year's work had been done in connection with a potential case of trespass, the client was advised that the matter was not worth pursuing because, even if he won, any award a court might make would be minimal.

By that time his own costs liability had reached 1,000.In effect, Mr M's complaint was that AB & Co had not told him that early on in the retainer and, had the firm done so, he would not have pursued the matter further.

He also maintained that the solicitors had not kept him informed about how costs were accumulating.AB & Co responded that it was made clear to Mr M at the outset of the retainer that the solicitors did not consider the matter worth pursuing.Their impression was that Mr M regarded the trespass, although minimal, as a matter of principle.

Unfortunately, they neglected to confirm their views in writing, although they did, three months into the retainer, write to Mr M observing that the firm could not know how much work would ultimately be involved.AB & Co submitted its first interim bill for about 550 ten months after taking initial instructions.

In the accompanying letter the firm indicated that further costs had already accrued.Soon after that AB & Co imparted the unpalatable information to Mr M that caused him to lodge his complaint and the solicitors to render a further bill.In imposing a compensatory award of 200, the OSS adjudicator observed that, although he was satisfied that the solicitors had misgivings about the benefits of pursuing the action having regard to the potential costs liability, they could not show that they had so advised Mr M.Without that information, Mr M could not possibly make an informed decision about whether or not he should proceed.Expressions of concern by the firm of solicitors were of little value unless they also gave specific advice about what Mr M could have expected to achieve.l Every case before the compliance and supervision committee is decided on its individual facts.

These case studies are for illustration only and should not be treated as precedents.