Conduct and service

Avoid nasty shocksThe Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS) continues to receive large numbers of complaints about deficient costs information.

While these days firms usually give at least basic information when the retainer commences, they often forget that the requirements of Law Society practice rule 15 now go far beyond that.

What is frequently forgotten is the need to tell a client if a previous estimate is likely to be exceeded.Rule 15s very wording implies that the client should be told at the earliest possible opportunity and as soon as it is known that the costs will exceed what has been previously mentioned.

Sadly it is frequently the case that the client is not told until after the estimate has been exceeded and, all too often, not until the final bill is rendered when it comes as a nasty shock.

This is precisely the evil that the revision of rule 15 of 3 September 1999 was meant to avoid.

Such was the situation in a complaint recently dealt with by the OSS.

The client instructed the firm in connection with a residence application concerning his children.

After asking for 350 on account, the solicitors told him to expect further costs in the region of 1,100.

When they rendered the final bill it was for 2,500 and not surprisingly, the client complained.The lawyers claimed they had not given an estimate, only a broad indication of what the costs were likely to be.

Exactly why they believed an indication did not amount to an estimate, as opposed to a quotation, is not clear.

However, in this case they also admitted that they had given the client no other costs information at the outset.

The first bill they rendered was for about 350, which accounted for the payment on account, and the client was given no indication the figure he had been given earlier was likely to be exceeded.Principle 13.07 of the Guide to the Professional Conduct of Solicitors, seventh edition (current at the relevant time) required that estimates should be confirmed and that the final amount should not differ substantially from the estimate unless the client had been warned in writing.

Despite the solicitors protestations that the circumstances prompting the increase arose fairly late in the day, the adjudicator decided no proper effort had been made to tell the client that the estimate would be exceeded.

The award of 300 compensation was confirmed on appeal.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.