Conduct and service

A costly taleA primary aim of the Costs Information & Client Care Code 1999 was to prevent clients being taken by surprise by the amount of costs they are expected to pay.

Particularly in protracted litigation, they should be kept informed about accumulating costs.Most clients do budget for costs they know they have to meet.

If they're then suddenly required to pay a sum well over what they were expecting, particularly in situations where the client might regard himself as being held to ransom, solicitors shouldn't be surprised if they receive a complaint.If that complaint is referred to the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS), they should also be prepared for it to be regarded as serious - especially if there are other, aggravating, factors.Unfortunately, that was the case with a complaint recently handled by the OSS.The solicitors had been instructed in connection with a personal injury claim.

It was eight years before the matter came to court.

The solicitors admitted delay and conceded they hadn't kept the complainant properly informed about factors that were material to her case.

They had also failed to deal with queries raised by the complainant about one particular aspect of it.However, the real nub of the complaint - what probably caused the client finally to raise all her grievances with the firm - was that just two days before the hearing, she was asked to pay 2,000.

To make matters worse, it was the first request for costs she had received since an initial payment on account eight years earlier.

Even then, she was not told the reason for the demand.

Though the complainant didn't appreciate it to be the case, the solicitors had also failed to explain fully the costs considerations of a payment into court.

They had merely said that if the complainant failed to beat the amount paid in, she would have to pay the opponent's costs from the date of the payment in.As happens all too often, the solicitors failed to tell her that even though she had won her case, she would also have to pay her own solicitors' costs from the date of the payment in if she failed to beat it.

Fortunately that aspect proved to be of no consequence, but it could so easily have been otherwise.This sorry story resulted in the solicitors' costs of 10,000 being reduced by 3,000 and a requirement to pay 2,000 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.