The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has slashed the regulator’s cost applications in three different judgments published within eight days – finding the sums of money sought ‘excessive’ or without ‘proper explanation’. The judgments are critical of public sector law specialist Capsticks, which acted for the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

In Charles Ewan’s hearing, costs were reduced by more than half on what Capsticks, for the SRA, sought. The £39,964.20 requested was cut to £19,509.20. The tribunal expressed ‘concerns about the lack of information relating to the forensic investigation costs’ and reduced the costs ‘in the absence of proper explanation’.

A judgment released the following day in Christopher Scroggs’ tribunal saw costs reduced from £22,800 to £15,000. The tribunal ‘considered that the costs were high… given the areas which were in dispute, the tribunal regarded the fees as disproportionate’.

It added that though the ‘£600 sought for the SRA’s supervision costs [was] reasonable’, the ‘fixed fee of £18,500 was excessive for a matter in which such extensive factual admissions were made, and the areas of dispute were so narrow.’

The SDT described Ewan’s case as ‘not… particularly complex’, while Scroggs’ case was ‘not legally or factually complex’ to justify the high costs.

A separate tribunal, sitting in the case of Ian Wilson, challenged a costs application for £38,916. The tribunal granted the application in principle but reduced the quantum as ‘the preparation time claimed appeared excessive… the number of fee-earners who had conduct of the matter would have inevitably resulted in duplication… and the substantive hearing concluded in 1.5 as opposed to four days.’ Costs of £33,000 – a reduction of £5,916 – were awarded.

Capsticks has worked with the SRA since 2009. It became the sole provider for the regulator in disciplinary proceedings in 2017.

The scale of prosecution costs has long been an issue. In 2021, the SDT reduced a costs award from the £42,600 claimed by the SRA to £15,000, saying the commercial fee arrangement between the SRA and Capsticks was ‘totally disproportionate to what was a very straightforward case’.

Capsticks has been approached for comment.

 

This article is now closed for comment.

Topics