I have a bill of costs which utilises various hourly rates for the “Grade C”, “Grade A” and “Costs Draftsman”. However, the bill fails to comply with Costs Practice Direction 4.5:
“The background information included in the bill of costs should set out:
(2) a statement of the status of the solicitor or solicitor’s employee in respect of whom costs are claimed and (if those costs are calculated on the basis of hourly rates) the hourly rates claimed for each such person.”
Therefore, at an early stage (July 2009), I requested details of the names, qualifications and PQE of each fee earner. The claimant’s “law costs specialists” subsequently gave the names of the various fees earners and indicated which of them they classified as Grade A or Grade C. Oddly, there was a total failure to deal with the question of qualifications or PQE.
The matter drags on and Points of Dispute are served in September which repeat the request for details of the qualifications and PQE of the fee earners.
Replies are served months out of time in December.
These Replies give the date of qualification of two of the fee earners (the Grade As) and state in relation to the other three fee earners that they “do not have the qualifications however all have the relevant experience to claim a Grade C Grade.”
Grade A and B fee earners are defined as follows:
A – Solicitors with over eight years post qualification experience including at least eight years litigation experience.
B – Solicitors and legal executives with over four years post qualification experience including at least four years litigation experience.
A Grade C fee earner is defined as: “Other solicitors and legal executives and fee earners of equivalent experience”.
The Guide to Summary Assessment of Costs (page 1494 of the White Book 2010) states: “Whether or not a fee earner has equivalent experience is ultimately a matter for the discretion of the court.”
More specifically, the Guide states:
“Unqualified clerks who are fee earners of equivalent experience may be entitled to similar rates and in this regard it should be borne in mind that Fellows of the Institute of Legal Executives generally spend two years in a solicitor’s office before passing their Part 1 general examinations, spend a further two years before passing the Part 2 specialist examinations and then complete a further two years in practice before being able to become Fellows. Fellows have therefore possess [sic] considerable practical experience and academic achievement. Clerks without the equivalent experience of legal executives will be treated as being in the bottom grade of fee earner ie. trainee solicitors and fee earners of equivalent experience [Grade D].”
So, a FILEX has six year’s experience and academic achievement under their belt. Those without this should be treated as Grade D. There may be arguments as to whether seven or eight year’s experience is sufficient to amount to Grade C status without having passed the exams required of a FILEX.
I advised my instructing solicitors to raise a formal Part 18 Request to drag a proper answer out of the other side.
The response that has just been received is that the experience of the unqualified fee earners is: six years, five years and two years respectively.
The first two fairly obviously aren’t the equivalent of a FILEX. Although the first has the equivalent experience, just, neither has undertaken the academic training. But what about the third?
Two years. Unqualified.
On what parallel legal costs world does that equate to the equivalent of a qualified solicitor or FILEX?
At what stage does wishful thinking concerning the rates that might be allowed move into outright fraud?
4 thoughts on “Grade C fee earner?”
The lack of clear definitions of Grade C and D is an issue that should be addressed. Back when there were only 3 grades it was less of a problem: it was clear who fit where. Somehow adding an extra category at the top (8 years +) has muddied the waters.
It’s almost as if solicitor’s firms want to maximise their profits…
End of the day firms can set up their charge rates how they wish. Finding them out during assessment as above is a good thing, but how many cases get to that stage? How many cases claiming grade C fee earners simply settle by negotiation? My experience is weighted far more in favour of the latter. I would imagine in that in most firms there are fee earners who strictly speaking should be a ‘D’ but get claimed (and paid) as a ‘C’.
Draftsman do this also
I find there are virtually no circumstances in which anyone ever describes themself as Grade D, irrespective of experience, and the situation Simon describes is all too commonplace
It isnt assisted at all by Courts whom routinely accept the Grade C claim irrespective
And where is Pearless de Rougemont in all this?
Interestly on the point, I have seen a generic statement filed in many cases by the principle of a large RTA firm, in connection with Relief from Sanctions, where he openly states that many of his fee-earners conducting the rta claims in question did not have the requisite experience or skill, to deal with litigated RTA cases (as a partial excuse for the deafults). Given most RTA firms operate within the Predictives regime (or the newer claims process) and therefore use the lowest file handlers for cost effectiveness, why on earth do these same people suddenly elevate to “Grade C” upon issue and recovery of Standard Basis costs?
Methinks far too much “creative description” by claimant negotiators, whom really should be challenged harder on their claims
Pingback: What grade of fee earner is a costs lawyer or costs draftsman? : GWS Law