How the Law Society of England and Wales control external legal costs!



In the matter of:



In this costs capping hearing, The Law Society of England and Wales, sort costs in excess of £637,000 (on reduced hourly rates of city law firm, Norton Rose Fulbright) in regard to a claim against them of £500,000.

The Law Society’s costs were subsequently capped at £350,000.


In the present case, the claimant is an SME with an annual turnover of some £750,000.

The claim alleges an abuse of dominant position by the defendant, the Law Society, and seeks an injunction and damages. The part of the case that is subject to the FTP by order of the Tribunal is limited to the injunction claim. If an abuse is established, then the question of damages has been split off for a subsequent trial outside the FTP. However,

it is relevant to note that the damages are quantified in the claim form at £112,500, on the basis that by reason of the conduct complained of the claimant has lost the custom of some 75 firms who would spend some £600 each for two and a half years. In pure financial terms, as a competition action this is not a large claim. Of course, if an injunction were not granted after trial, the ongoing loss would be greater, so it may be said that the value of the claim is not limited to the damages to trial but extends several years into the future. Even so, it is hard to see that in broad terms it is over £500,000.

 Costs Capping Application.

Both sides have put in costs budgets as directed. The claimant’s budget is in the total sum of some £220,000, which includes almost £56,000 for an expert economist. The defendant’s budget is a little over £637,000, including a little over £33,000 for an expert economist.

The Law Society, having initially instructed a well-known firm of solicitors in Birmingham, then changed to instruct a major firm in the City of London. Mr. Scott, a partner in the Law Society’s current solicitors, explains in his witness statement and as I accept, the solicitors have reduced their fees below their usual commercial rate. However, even with this reduction the charge amounts to £395 an hour for the partner and £315 an hour for a senior associate. I note that the trainee solicitor is charged at £150 an hour.

Specific Issues on the Budgets

(1) So far, this case has involved the preparation and then amendment of a defence, which was drafted by counsel, attendance at one case management conference and consideration of issues concerning disclosure, but not any actual disclosure. I find it surprising and certainly not reasonable that the solicitors have spent 450 hours since being instructed on the 25 April 2016 at a cost of almost £140,000.

( 2) I note that the fees for preparing witness statements are calculated on the assumption that each of the four witness statements would be 30 pages in length. Even on that assumption, I do not think it is reasonable or necessary for the partner to devote 40 hours to reviewing those witness statements, and reviewing the statements of no more than three witnesses from the other side, when the other members of the team are also devoting 235 hours to this task.In addition, there is a charge of £16,000 for counsel’s work under the same head.(

(3) Given that the expert economist is charging the fees of some £33,000 for his or her work on the experts’ reports, which I do regard as reasonable, it is not, in my view, reasonable or necessary for the solicitors and counsel to incur further fees of over £50,000 in connection with the preparation of the expert’s report, which, of course, has to be prepared by the expert not by them, and then consideration of the report produced by the other side’s expert. Some expenditure of time on that is clearly justifiable, but, in my view, not this much.

(4) For the solicitors to charge over £103,000 for trial preparation and attendance at a three to four day trial – all that, of course, quite apart from counsel’s fees –seems to me excessive. I should observe that it is, of course, the claimant’s solicitors, not the defendant’s solicitors, that will be preparing the trial bundles and this is not a case where those bundles will comprise many thousands of documents.



Standing back, on the material now before the Tribunal, in my judgement the appropriate figure for a cap on the claimant’s recoverable costs from the Law Society is £200,000, and the appropriate figure for a cap on the Law Society’s recoverable costs from the claimant is £350,000

Questions for The Law Society Gazette


“Don’t sneer at solicitors for not publishing prices”

 The above article (link below) appeared in The Law Society Gazette, 13 April 2017, under the heading:

The introduction of the article stated;

“It should be self-evident why solicitors cannot be more open about their prices.

They are not retrograde obstructionists, running scared of scrutiny and determined to keep clients in the dark.

They simply cannot set and publish prices for many complex pieces of work when there are so many differentials involved. To paraphrase one American, there are too many ‘known unknowns’ at play here.

There will be strands of work where firms can offer guidance, perhaps a price range, to let consumers know where they stand.

But to require them to be specific and commit to prices for clients yet to even get in contact is a road to ruin – or at least unpaid bills and the small claims court.

There may well be other industries where prices are fixed and on show. But the law is not a ‘fruit and veg’ stall – it is a dynamic and difficult sector, with feet-dragging opponents, and unpredictable and sometimes costly pitfalls along the way”.

The article then continued to express concerns that the SRA “is being leant ” – The word leant on was in bold and linked to an article published in the Law Society Gazette dated 15 December 2016 –in regard to The Competitions Marketing Authority’s (“CMA”)  Report on the legal market place under the headline : Firms must publish price information-

It is not for me to comment on, if the CMA/others are “leaning on” the SRA as I am sure the CMA/others and the SRA will reply to this article in due course. What is relevant is the CMA conducted extensive research into the legal market place in 2016. Concluding that transparency on fees/costs is a major issue. The Law Society and specifically the regulation team did participate in this research process, in fact attending the CMA’s round table meeting in September 2016. The Law Society’s regulation team members sat on the same table at this meeting with representatives of the Legal Ombudsman, Ministry of Justice and others.

The direct/indirect result of this process led the Law Society to draft; The Price and Service Transparency Toolkit,  ( see link below) which  was published  the week before the CMA report was published.

The introduction stated:

“Price and service transparency is not about providing more information, as too much can cause confusion. The key is to provide the right information which allows those seeking legal services to assess the value of the service”.

Page 5- Stated:

Disbursement is a well understood term in the legal world but it may not be a familiar term to clients. Disbursements are defined by the Solicitors’ Accounts Rules 2011 (SAR) as

“any sum that you spend or are going to spend on behalf of your client or trust, including any VAT element12”.

The SRA is clear that a firm’s overheads are not considered to be disbursements13. The following should not be described as disbursements:

  • annual subscription costs and transaction fees for using online solutions to manage business processes,
  • telegraphic transfers,
  • administration charges such as postage and photocopying

The bottom item in my professional opinion covers the majority of bills submitted to clients by law firms in England & Wales.

Let’s  make this simple, the SRA and the Law Society have now categorically stated that law firms CANNOT charge as disbursements –

“ administration charges such as postage and photocopying”.

I have raised this specific issue with the Regulatory Team, of the Law Society. I met them at the CMA Round table meeting last September and subsequently at their offices in Chancery Lane in November 2016. So they know my views on this subject.

The Law Society Gazette as the mouth piece of the legal profession must now clearly state that these overheads are not chargeable to the client.







Discussing the  legal costs in the Historic Children’s Inquiry in The  States of Jersey Assembly (i.e. Parliamentary Question Time). The initial budget was £7m and the costs are now expected to exceed £20M

Below are 3 quotes from states members:

Page 72-  Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

I am reminded of a discussion or a meeting, I think between the Chief Minister, possibly the Minister for Treasury and Resources, and myself and I think there was a representative – I will think of the name – I think it was Jim Diamond Consulting Limited many years ago. I do not know if the name is quite right, but that particular individual had a reputation and a career in analysing and digesting legal costs and the legal profession did not like him very much because he had some success. All I would suggest, perhaps to the Chief Minister, is perhaps

page-82   Deputy P.D. McLinton of St. Saviour:

I am going to mention this and I am very pleased that Deputy Le Fondré mentioned already, Jim Diamond, a costs lawyer, who has been described as a pioneer of legal budgeting, who I would suggest may be employed by the Island to go over our legal bill with a fine toothcomb. He may be able to claw-back some of the money for our Island while still enabling the inquiry to do its valuable work. It is our perfect right to get the best value for money and, I believe, on his track record, he may be the very man for the job. I only mention him in this debate because his name keeps coming up off the record and, though it is already on the record, I want to make sure it is really on the record.

Page 86-Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

How I could do that as chairman of my Scrutiny Panel? I am going to be in a lot of trouble. Who quite rightly pointed out … what has not sprung out of my mind is Mr. Diamond who, of course, is a cost control lawyer that Members will have heard mention before and I think some of the work he has carried out in the past, or indeed there are other similar individuals in firms, are those that we need to focus attention on in order to ensure that services that are being procured are done so in an efficient and an effective manner. I think at the very heart of the problems that we see before us in 87 terms of controlling costs have been the fact that quite rightly this has been an independent inquiry set up; independence is obviously critically important.




Dechert -v- ENRC – 27.1.2017

The above case has received substantial coverage in the legal press. The global legal costs run to over £15m+. Well it was going to happen some time, i.e. the courts or the regulators getting a grip of the mess in the legal profession of lack of budget information/accuracy/updates. Advocating on this issue for over 2 decades.  I wrote an article called Budget based billing in 1999, published in Legal 500.The whole purposes of my work on the Tool Kit on Costs Management published by the Law Society in 2013 was to give the legal profession, specifically the small law firms the tools to be able to provide budgets/costs information/updates to their clients. As it sold a grand total of 2 in 2016, I suspect not! The legal profession has buried its preverbal head in the sands.  Well wake up and smell the coffee, if legal costs, as in this case can end up in court because of lack of budget information/accuracy/updates wait till the rest of the world catches on.

The judgment  in this case runs to over 100 paragraphs. I have picked out the 2 paragraphs as a stark warning to the legal profession that the courts will not tolerate the BAD old ways of budgets/client transparency.

 51              Mr Gerrard’s view that the work was difficult to predict is prevalent in every estimate that he has given. But any such difficulty is in my view wholly insufficient to cover the gap between the estimates and the reality. Mr Gerrard’s phrasing is redolent of costs estimates from ten or more years ago where a solicitor would routinely say that the costs to be incurred were impossible to predict. As recorded above, Mr Gerrard referred in his first estimate to the need for efficiency, careful consideration and intelligent targeting of time and resources. He indicated that the claimant would be kept informed of the likely costs as the matter progressed. The discrepancy between that approach and the reality of brief estimates only produced reactively, and which were invariably underestimates, is vast.

52.               The work carried out in this case straddles the period of the review of Lord Justice Jackson. The need to improve the prospective understanding of costs through budgeting was writ large within that report and given prominent publicity. In that environment, it is simply not sufficient for a solicitor to provide an early estimate which is then not updated for a considerable period. I have already commented that the original estimate made seemingly unrealistic assumptions on the work that would be required and in my view it was almost inevitable that it would be exceeded once the investigations had begun.

 Paragraph 34.An example given of actuals/budget figures.

 Monthly estimate for 2012 April to August  between £350K to £400K.

Actual Costs 

May £696K

June £492K

July £596K

Aug £622K.

 Monthly estimate for 2012 September –  Dec £530K -£560K.

Actual costs

Sept £784K

Oct  £1.35m

Nov £1.14m