Report comment

Some of the comments in the judgment and SRA arguments are indeed worrying, in isolation. For example, arguing that rendering a bill that was disproportionate was dishonest / showed a lack of integrity. We're now 6 years since LASPO, and still the new proportionality test and how it will actually be applied is a bit of a lottery, so on face value that's a concerning argument to say the least.

However, diving into the judgment makes it clear that there was more to this - an earlier DJ had said on assessment:

"...over a number of years I have assessed a significant number of [the Firm's] bills. My comments are based on that experience. … The bills often show that a number of fee earners have been involved. The fee earners are usually described as being 'Fee Earner X (assisted by his/her team)' or 'Supervisor X'. Their status, using the guideline descriptions are inevitably grade C or higher. The fee earner's actual experience/status is often ambiguous or not addressed until replies are served. The majority of the fee earners are not qualified solicitors, but are ascribed their grade by reference to their 'relevant experience'..."

It's also clear that there was a very clear pattern to this, with multiple bills being routinely reduced by massive amounts on assessments.

More damning:

"The Tribunal considered that the First Respondent had deliberately insulated the costs department from the rest of the Firm so as to prevent it from seeking knowledge/information from fee earners that might have led to questions being raised as regards the Firm's costs practices. He had created guidance documents that were designed to restrict independent thought and to maintain a charging process he knew to be producing inflated and unjustifiable bills of costs. He had demonstrated a calculated disregard for Practice Directions so as to create a lack of transparency intended to obscure from the paying party the true level of experience and ability of fee earners in order to attempt to charge wholly unwarranted excessive and preposterous costs."