Conduct and service

The dangers of ambiguityComplaints about costs information crop up for various reasons, but nearly always they arise because, where information has been given, it was unclear and the eventual bill has taken the client by surprise.Although it is difficult to forecast costs with any degree of accuracy in many legal matters, especially litigation, it is not enough merely to quote an hourly rate without trying to give the client at least some idea of the overall level of costs he can expect to pay.Solicitors often maintain that, particularly in litigation matters, no realistic estimate can be given because it is impossible to predict how a case will develop.

That's fair enough, but in the majority of such cases, it should still be possible to tell the client he could well be looking at a bill of, for example, between 4,000 and 6,000 (and if it seems that it may be more, he will be told as soon as that is apparent), rather than a bill running into hundreds of pounds, or even 2,000.Sometimes there are cases where even that is not possible.

Imprecise forecasting of the final bill was one of the elements of a complaint recently referred to the OSS.

However, it was not that particular issue on which the solicitors were ultimately found to be at fault.The case related to the validity of a foreign decree of divorce.

The advice and views of foreign lawyers had to be sought.

This factor alone made it impossible to give a realistic assessment of the likely overall costs.At the outset, the solicitors simply indicated the costs were likely to be high and asked for a substantial sum on account.

It was not until six months later that the position had clarified enough for the solicitors to warn the client he should budget for about 30,000.By then the client had already been billed for 11,500.

The question was, was the 30,000 inclusive of the 11,500 or on top of it? The letter was ambiguous.

The eventual bill totalled just more than 50,000 and the client complained he had been misled.

The solicitors maintained they had intended to convey that the 30,000 was in addition to the 11,500 (in which case they had still substantially exceeded their own estimate), but it was apparent that the client had read it as being inclusive.The solicitors were ordered to pay the client 500 compensation.

The lesson is to ensure that costs information cannot be misunderstood.l Every case before the adjudication panel is decided on its individual facts.

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