The new Civil Procedure Rules (Woolf Reforms) came into effect on 26 April 1999

The new Civil Procedure Rules (Woolf Reforms) came into effect on 26 April 1999. A key aim of the reforms is to provide a system of resolving disputes which is more affordable and which makes the costs of litigation more predictable for parties. Although the Woolf reforms leave the finer details of costs' arrangements between solicitor and client to be decided by the parties, recent case law has significantly widened the options of payment of costs.

We set out below an example of a hypothetical billing and funding arrangement entered into between solicitor and client.

 

Swann Limited and its solicitors, Jones Smith & Partners, entered into a billing and funding arrangement which both were satisfied dealt fairly and reasonably with the structure and payment of legal costs in this piece of litigation.

The arrangement worked as follows:

 

Ê No bills were rendered throughout the litigation. A statement of costs was produced in the form shown on conclusion of the matter.

 

Ë A detailed budget was produced at the start of the matter. The total budget amounted to £95,000. The anticipated duration of the litigation was ten months. Swann Limited agreed to pay Jones Smith & Partners £9,500 per month on the first of each month.

(Successful litigants will not only have the benefit of a budget but should recover the cost of the preparation of the budget document in the litigation itself: Rule 43)

 

Ì The actual work in progress figures are included in the statement.

 

Í A 'budget success and failure' formula was agreed in that:

 

(a)     If the actual cost figure comes in at less than 50% of budget figure a success uplift of 25% is to be applied;

(b)     If the actual costs figure exceeds the budget figure, the budget figure caps the fee chargeable

 

Î The position in relation to the client recovering his own internal costs is somewhat unclear. Rule 48.6 states 'Companies can be litigants in person and as such can recover costs'. What and how much will undoubtedly be decided in future case law. Swann Limited in this case agree to pay Jones Smith & Partners a success fee based on 25% of any of their internal costs recovered.

 

  • If appropriate consider capping the number of hours a day/month that the firm can bill;
  • Ask for regular estimates of costs at various stages of the matter; eg, in litigation, request an estimate up to the discovery;
  • For matters that are likely to continue for a long time, ask for regular monthly bills;
  • Ask for a detailed narrative to accompany the bill, describing exactly what actions have been taken and by whom during the relevant billing period;
  • Check all disbursements carefully; and
  • Always query anything which you do not understand or disagree with on the bill.

 

Above we review a hypothetical billing and funding arrangement entered into between solicitor and client.

 

Text Box: Date	Budget  Ë	Cost Ì	% +/- Í	Total
 Jones Smith SolicitorsVAT NO 000123Swann Limited"Allerton"LondonRe: Statement of Litigation fees in relation to a dispute affecting "Allerton" Ê				
All work done in relation to Pre-Action protocol (4a)	£5,000	£2,000	25% plus	£2,500
All work done in relation to issuing proceedings (4b)	£10,000	£11,250	Capped Fee	£10,000
All work done in frelation to consideration of the #Defence and formulation of relevant Rule 36 offer (4a)	£5,000	£2,000	25% plus	£2,500
All work done in relation to discovery (4b)	£20,000	£24,000	Capped Fee	£20,000
All further preparatory work and including attending a 3 day trial (4b)	£55,000	£78,000	Capped Fee	£55,000
TOTALS	£95,000	£117,250		£90,000
Swann Limited internal Legal and Management Costs recovered from 3rd Party Î		£20,000	25% plus	£5,000
TOTAL PROFESSIONAL FEE				£95,000
VAT				£46,625
TOTAL				£111,625
CREDIT10 monthly payments of £9,500 (2)				£95,000
TOTAL BALANCE DUE				£16,625




Articles - Archive
Precedent Retainer Agreement (Sep 2003)
Legal 500 Hourly Rate Survey for 2003
December 2002 Newsletter - Budget Estimates; Costs estimates return to haunt
The Lawyer 11 February 2002 lawyers ordered to disclose costs By Brendan Malkin
Dickinson decision opens a Pandora box on costs. Butterworths 6/02/02
The Lawyer September 24 2001
The Lawyer Magazine 21st May 2001
The Hour of Reckoning, 5/10/00
Extract from Legal 500, 1998


Back

........................................