The Law Society's compliance board has issued a policy statement concerning compensation claims for miners.

Solicitors receive fixed costs from the government under certain schemes in which they act in miners' work-related injury claims.

However, the Society has received complaints that some firms have made additional charges to these clients.

The compliance board considers that the making of an additional charge to the client is likely to give rise to a finding of inadequate professional services and, if there is also evidence of taking unfair advantage of the client by overcharging, a finding of misconduct.

This will apply unless full information was given to the client at the start of the matter and the additional charge involved was itself reasonable.

While each case will be dependent on its own facts, the compliance board considers that the following will be relevant to any conclusion reached in a particular case on the question of sufficient information:

- Whether the client was informed that, in addition to costs the client had agreed to pay to the firm, the solicitor would be receiving costs from the government scheme, and;

- Whether (in an agreement entered into after April 2000) the client was informed that most other firms of solicitors did not make additional charges.

When considering the reasonableness of any additional charges, the following are likely to be taken into account:

- Whether additional charges (however calculated) amounted to more than 100% of the fixed costs recoverable from the Department of Trade and Industry, and whether the additional charges (however calculated) amounted to more than 25% of the damages recovered by the client, and;

- Whether the firm considered the particular risk of the client's claim being unsuccessful in determining the level of additional charges.

In cases where a client makes a complaint directly to a firm, the compliance board will expect the firm to consider the complaint under its in-house procedures.

In instances where the complaint is addressed directly to the Law Society, the complainant will not be required first to raise the issue with the firm.

This change in normal policy is justified by the particular vulnerability of these clients.

Firms should consider the above factors when considering their response to the complaint.

They should understand that, where the Law Society concludes that either the inadequate costs information or taking unfair advantage of a client by overcharging, amounts to an inadequate professional service, any bill is likely to be reduced to nil.

Furthermore, in the absence of a clear justification of any additional charge, the firm is likely to be required to repay the costs to the client.