Watch out for principle 14.12


Principle 14.12 of The Guide to the Professional Conduct of Solicitors 1999 (8th Edition) is in place to prevent a solicitor taking unfair advantage of a client by overcharging. Solicitors can overlook the fact that they are responsible for work carried out by those under their supervision.



Mr Y consulted his solicitor following his marriage breakdown. His wife lived abroad and matrimonial property was situated in two countries. Most of the work was carried out by a trainee who was both interested in the topic and proved herself to be more than capable in dealing with the arising complex financial questions. Her published hourly rate was less than her supervising principal, one of two partners.


During the course of the retainer, difficulties arose within the firm and the partners ceased to speak with one another. There was a dissolution, the trainee remaining with the partner who had not previously been her training principal. However, her new supervising principal was equally satisfied with her work and shortly afterwards the retainer came to a conclusion. The trainee drew a bill based on her time records and those incurred by her former principal who, by then, had left the firm. The continuing principal was unaware of the detail of what had transpired and the bill was presented.


The client complained that the rates charged by the former partner were totally disproportionate for the amount of work he had done; the trainee, with whom the client expressed total satisfaction, had conducted most of it. The continuing principal had failed to take steps to ensure, before he signed the bill, that it represented a proper and fair reflection of the work carried out at the time. He was thus in breach of principle 14.12 by seeking to take advantage by over-charging. His position was not helped when the trainee confirmed she had expressed concern that the supervisory regime in the firm left much to be desired.


Although a finding was made against the solicitor, no formal sanction was imposed. He had no knowledge of what had preceded him and had taken the matter on trust. His action was injudicious but without mal intent. A further allegation of failing to exercise reasonable supervision under principle 3.07 of the guide was not pursued. At the relevant time, his former partner had been the person responsible.


It is well worth taking an extra step to ensure that where more than one fee-earner is involved, those charging higher hourly rates are able to justify the work carried out on a particular matter.



Every case before the adjudication panel is decided on its facts. This case study is for illustration only and should not be treated as a precedent



Lawyerline


Facing a service complaint? Need advice on how to handle it? Contact the Law Society's LAWYERLINE support service on 0870 606 2588.