Report comment

Dear Anon 09.18

I could not agree more - you explain these salient facts to a client - they enter into the agreement with you safe in the knowledge that they will get something they could not ordinarily afford, and solicitors are paid as much as is agreed to be paid to perform the work. That sum of often less than the real costs of the work - but in a restricted and diminishing market the parties agree what they agree, and some solicitors will work for less.

These so called 'costs lawyers' challenge this fully advised adult consent, often made with the solicitors two or three years before the initial instructions were taken to act on that 25% basis.

The challenges are often very narrow, highly technical, and are based in very old law which has not been tested for generations. It is an wholly artificial premise that is presented, and in the current fixed costs regime for RTA work (they touch nothing else as they cannot deal with a real hourly rate bill of costs!) wholly futile.

Quite what is said to these client's to get them to challenge perhaps a few hundred pounds on the basis of an experimental argument, at the exposure of four or five thousand pounds of adverse costs, is of some real concern.

When these 'costs lawyers' get hold of a client by whatever surreptitious device - what do they say to them in respect of their own costs of mounting these often trivial challenges is also of some concern.

A day out to the High Court or to the Court of Appeal does not present to any party value for money.

Who pays the adverse costs when, like is so so many instances, the matter goes wrong?

Charging orders, lost houses, third party orders, bankruptcy?

Given the individuals from these costs firms are tight lipped as to the source of the money and these instructions from hitherto happy client, it seems by my humble observations that these legal representative, (regulated, or not regulated as in these examples ) advances a matter before the court for their own monetary benefit.

That does present the obvious conflict between the 'costs lawyer' and the lay client.

If a client has a problem with the amounts charged - he should contact the solicitors at first instance, and then the legal ombudsman if a resolution cannot be achieved - both are free and offer value for money.

The resolutions are quick and, importantly , proportional, to the tiny if any amounts of money at stake.

It is painfully obvious these costs firms are only in it for the money - the could not care about their clients; and any vomit inducing suggestions of a crusade for good and just causes should be as the rank conceit is surely is.