Don't disregard the legally-aidedMost solicitors recognise the Law Society practice rule15 requirement to keep clients informed of ongoing costs information.However, some overlook the fact that this requirement extends to legally-aided clients as well as private payers.The solicitor's thinking behind this seems to be that as the legally-aided client will not be the recipient of his bill the accumulating costs will be of no interest to him - this is self-deluding.If the statutory charge applies the client will be greatly interested in how much he is, in effect, being asked to pay and there are other circumstances where the provision of cost information is relevant.The problem was highlighted where a complainant had received legal aid for ancillary matters pursuant to a divorce.

Those matters were eventually resolved by a consent order that provided items of jewellery be returned to the complainant and 1,000 lump sum paid.Within a day or so of this order the solicitors received notice of revocation of their client's legal aid certificate.

Apparently, the reason for the revocation was the client's failure to co-operate with a legal aid board re-assessment of her means.

The solicitors had no idea any re-assessment was taking place.The solicitor's costs were eventually assessed at a much higher amount recovered under the consent order, which, because of the revocation of the legal aid certificate, was then taken by the legal aid board leaving the client nothing.The client complained when she received a legal aid board demand for 2,500 two years later.

On investigation of the complaint it was discovered the complainant had received no advice at all to the effect that, not only would she lose her 1,000, but would also remain liable for the balance of any costs claimed from the legal aid board.Unfortunately, the solicitors also omitted to send the complainant a copy of the bill submitted for taxation so the 2,500 demand came as a complete shock to her.The solicitors were ordered to pay compensation to their former client and this decision was upheld 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.