Paying the billI read Peter Burdge's recent letter (see [2001] Gazette, 11 January, 16-18) with much interest.

Being a law costs draftsman with many unhappy clients who believe that what the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR) give with one hand, they take away with the other (at least in respect of the recovery of costs draftsman's fees in family proceedings subject to the LAFP(R)R 1991), I eagerly await the day when the costs of preparing a bill of costs are truly recoverable.

After all, if the rules require a detailed bill, the rules can pay for it.Mr Burdge correctly states that reg 3(4)(c)(iii) of the 1991 regulations gives a costs officer power to allow costs for such work above the prescribed sum.

But Mr Burdge seems to be a little confused regarding its application.Although the provision refers to the exceptional circumstances of the case, surely this does not make the preparation of a bill of costs for such a case exceptional.For example, if one is charged with preparing a bill of costs for an urgent application for injunctive relief, one may be able to justify the enhancement of the solicitor's costs on the grounds of economy and expedition.

This does not make the drawing of the bill of costs more 'exceptional' than it would have been had the case dragged on for years.

Does Mr Burdge believe that if his client is a panel member in run-of-the-mill care proceedings, he is entitled to claim more than the prescribed sum for preparing what may well be a run-of-the-mill bill of costs?I suggest that to 'remove' the 51.75 cap one needs to look at the bill of costs itself and not simply the characteristics of the case.

I am sure that any costs officer would agree that the drawing of a 20,000-plus bill of costs in a family matter is at least out of the ordinary, if not exceptional.

Then, and only then, should costs draftsmen be looking to exceed the paltry sum of 51.75.It is unfortunate that we are left with the outdated provisions of the 1991 regulations (given the objective of the CPR in respect of costs) and the apparent confusion that surrounds this issue.

Let us hope that the 1991 regulations are quickly dragged into this Woolfian era.Jon Williams, Williams Associates, Cardiff