Conduct and service

A costly oversightAlthough the requirement to give costs information at the outset of a retainer has been a requirement of the Law Society practice rules for more than ten years, it is surprising how often it is ignored or overlooked.The instances when the giving of costs information would not be regarded as essential are few and far between.

It would not, for instance, be regarded as necessary if the solicitor was doing continuous and repetitive work for the same client, so that the client would be well aware of the kind of charges he was likely to incur.Another circumstance would be the taking of instructions for a death-bed will, where it would be insensitive.

However, if any complaint is made on the basis that costs information was not given, it is always up to the solicitor to justify the failure.One common excuse that is made for overlooking the requirement is that instructions were given at the last minute for something that then had to be treated as an emergency.That might well be sufficient reason for not giving costs information at the outset of the retainer and before work is started, but it does not excuse complete failure to give any information at any stage.

Even less does it excuse the failure to give updates on the accumulation of costs when the retainer continues for some appreciable time.When emergency instructions are taken, the relevant costs information should still be given as soon as it is reasonably practical to do so.In a recent instance, the solicitors were instructed to take over the conduct of proceedings from another firm only five days before the final hearing was listed to take place.

Quite rightly, they gave priority to the preparation of the case.

They conceded that as a result of doing so, they inadvertently overlooked the matter of costs information.This is a not uncommon situation.

The solicitor is so preoccupied with the emergency work that he completely overlooks, even when the emergency has passed, that the usual costs information should be given to the client.

Unfortunately, in this example and for various reasons, the retainer continued for a further 18 months and the solicitors compounded matters by failing to send interim bills as well.The result, when their bill was eventually rendered, was a protest from the client at the amount he had to pay, alleging it was far more than he had expected.

The omission cost the solicitors 875 in compensation - equivalent to almost one fifth of their fees.