Legal Cost Specialists
Today I continue my examination of the calls for the Costs Lawyer Standards Board (CLSB) to introduce entity regulation of costs firms, in light of the decision in Kynaston v Carroll [2011] EWHC 2179. There appear to be two further arguments as to why entity regulation is required. The first one is that if Costs
"No" to entity regulation for costs firms Read More »
One of the problems with CPR 45.23 and the fixed success fee regime for EL disease claims is the Scope and Interpretation section which states it applies where: “(b) the dispute relates to a disease with which the employee is diagnosed that is alleged to have been contracted as a consequence of the employer’s alleged
LASPO lackadaisical logic Read More »
One of the amendments to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill voted through by the House of Lords is that the proposal to end recovery of success fees should not apply in industrial disease claims: “Exception for industrial disease cases The changes made by sections 46, 48 and 49 of this Act
I note the suggestion that trainee solicitors could be paid as little as £2.60 an hour in their first year under an amendment to the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s proposals for ending the minimum wage. Presumably we can then expect a corresponding decrease in Guideline Hourly Rates for trainee solicitors to, say, £10 per hour. This
New Guideline Hourly Rates? Read More »
One of the controversial forthcoming changes to the CPR concerning detailed assessment proceedings is to scrap the current CPR 47.18 and 47.19, concerning liability for detailed assessment costs, and substitute these with: “47.18 (1) The general rules about costs contained in Parts 36, 43 and 44 apply to the costs of detailed assessment proceedings, as
Detailed assessment and rights of audience Read More »
Following on from the decision in Kynaston v Carroll [2011] EWHC 2179 there have been calls in certain circles for entity regulation of costs firms. Currently the Costs Lawyer Standards Board (CLSB) regulates only individual Costs Lawyers. There appear to be a number of arguments being put forward as to why this needs to be
The real rights of audience "myth" Read More »
Costs Lawyer magazine has unsurprisingly been devoting quite a lot of coverage and comment to the case of Kynaston v Carroll [2011] EWHC 2179 (click to read judgment). This concerned the thorny issue of rights of audience at detailed assessment hearings. The facts of the case, so far as relevant, are that an employee of
"Rights of audience myth" myth Read More »
I continue to see, on a virtually daily basis, bills of costs and schedules that continue to wrongly claim VAT at 20% throughout despite the fact that some of the work was done prior to 2011. How long will it take for all Costs Lawyers and law costs draftsmen to understand how this works? It’s
VAT rate on legal costs should be apportioned Read More »
Why do we get the plural “Lawyers” in “Association of Costs Lawyers” but the singular “Lawyer” in “Costs Lawyer Standards Board? They don’t call it the “Solicitor Regulation Authority”. And surely there should be an apostrophe in there somewhere. Should it not be: “Costs Lawyers’ Standards Board”? This is the kind of stuff that keeps
Costs Lawyer Standards Board? Read More »
CPR 48.6 allows for a litigant in person to recover “the costs of obtaining expert assistance in assessing the costs claim”. CPD 52.1 states that those who qualify for the purposes of this rule will include a “Fellow of the Association of Law Costs Draftsmen”. The problem with this rule is that most Fellows have
Expert assistance in assessing costs Read More »