Report comment

I'm probably way behind the curve on this one, and have missed some of the legal nuances, but I am surprised at the lawyer reaction to Mark Carlisle's involvement. In the 1980s and 1990s, I routinely instructed costs draftsmen to handle costs matters without a solicitor being present (as most solicitors then knew little about costs, and why pay the bill for their additional involvement?). I don't really see the difference here.

Are we talking about protectionism, or what is best (usually meaning most cost effective at this level) for the client?