Conduct and service

Changes in chargingSolicitors have been obliged since 1991 to give clients information about the costs that will be charged for the work to be done.

The Solicitors Costs Information and Client Care Code which took effect on 3 September 1999 modified the requirements, making it clear that it is not only preferable for solicitors to do more than just quote an hourly rate, but that the obligation continues throughout the duration of the retainer.Many solicitors interpreted the old rule to mean they had to let the client know only their hourly charge out rate.

Regrettably, some still appear to hold that view.While in certain matters, most notably civil litigation, it can be difficult to give even a fairly accurate overall estimate, often clients can be told more than the bare hourly rate, which is meaningless without an estimate of the likely number of hours involved.

However, where only a hourly rate is given, practitioners must remember to tell the client if it should change for any reason and the same goes for any other change in the costs information a client has been given.In a recent case referred to the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS), the client had initially been told that he would be charged a certain amount per hour and was charged accordingly for over a year.

The problem came when the firm almost doubled the fee-earners charge-out rate when he qualified, but neglected to tell the client.When the firm rendered its next interim bill, the client immediately queried the enormous increase in the amount he was being asked to pay.

To its credit, the firm recognised its mistake and immediately submitted an amended account calculated at the old charge-out rate.Unfortunately, the client already had other complaints and this was the final straw.

As a result he transferred his instructions to another firm, which requested the papers.

The first firm sought to exercise its right to a lien and quoted a figure for the costs outstanding.

This was paid, but the firm found it had done the original sums wrongly and was due a further amount, which was duly requested.The balance was paid, but when the client raised a complaint based on the consequent delay in his new solicitors getting the file, the firm responded with the old excuse that the client ought to have known the correct balance as he had all the bills and knew how much he had paid towards them.This attempt to blame the client for the solicitors own mistake cut no ice.

The OSS adjudicator awarded the client 100 compensation.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.