If, during proceedings, a
solicitor:
- Provides 3 estimates of costs (Form H, Family
case) all based on £80/hr
- Asks for (and obtains) a "summary assessment"
based on those estimates and that RATE
- Writes to her client 3 months
AFTER the work is completed agreeing "the costs as
ordered" (based on £80/hr)
more than cover her liability to them.
- Attempts to enforce the order (based on
the £80/hr) through the
courts 3 months AFTER the work is completed...
Is the solicitor entitled to costs at £165/hr for that SAME WORK - 18 MONTHS
later?
According to one District Judge and one Circuit
Judge ... the answer is "YES".
Doesn't this...
- Undermine the whole
PURPOSE of those estimates? In this case
undermines Section 2.61F of the
Family Practice Rules?
- Breach the age-old Indemnity
Principle?
- Allow the solicitor to
create (retrospectively) "a CFA by
the back door"?
SHOULD the judge performing the
detailed assessment be TOLD of the "reason"
(Leigh Vs Michelin Tyre) for the increase is that the solicitor more than
DOUBLED the RATE claimed in the "bill" over that claimed in the estimates?
Is it ok for the solicitor to keep this secret from
the Court and the Parties?
YOUR Help Wanted - Thursday 22nd April
2010
Please come to the Court of Appeal in London... because it
seems to me that, without witnesses, yet another set of judges will
attempt to bush serious solicitor misconduct and lies under
the carpet in the mistaken belief that this is the BEST thing for the
legal profession.
We NEED your
help! >>> Please Contact
Me <<< In the
public interest!
I have only 20 minutes to convince
them of the
OBVIOUS! |
NONE of the BIG "costs" cases -
Leigh Vs Michelin, Garbut Vs
Edwards, Withers Vs Master Cigars even
MENTION the RATE... it is too OBVIOUSLY WRONG to allow and
undisclosed and secret DOUBLING of the RATE.
What is OBVIOUS to Man in the
Street does not seem clear to the profession or to some
judges. Why?
It is plain we are in
need of some CLEAR guidelines IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
FACTS:
- In 2004 the entire solicitors file was "missing"
(convenient for the solicitor) at the detailed assessment but D J Brookes
decided to go ahead, relying on the solicitor's "certificate" on the bill and
upon the word of the costs draughtsman (click
here).
- In 2008 the solicitor (now retired) ADMITTED
under oath that she should NOT have signed the bill due to the Indemnity
Principle. In 2008 the costs draughtsman was fined £5,000 by the ALCD
for lying to the court and for producing (another) bill which breached the
Indemnity Principle.
- At the time D J Brookes took a dim view of
the "poor" estimates. He was told by the costs draughtsman that the
REASON for the increase (> 500%) between Forms H and the "bill" was because
the solicitor failed to record her TIME properly. Keeping secret the DOUBLING of the RATE was the
FIRST LIE told to the court. The evidence for this
only came out FOUR YEARS later, in 2008.
- D J Brookes made a "Leigh" type
decision:-
- He initially said that estimates should be
accurate - "within 5% to 10%" he said.
- In the end he decided I should pay 150% of the
"estimate" - (NB: estimates +15% (115%) is more normal in Case Law and
in family cases Forms H estimates are almost
exclusively for work already done - so he was being VERY generous to
the solicitor indeed)
- He did NOT approach "Leigh" correctly and he
ignored the fact that both His Honour Judge Barclay and I had RELIED on
those estimates in asking for (and ordering) the detailed
assessment.
The SECOND LIE told
to the court
- D J Brookes took the AMOUNT of the estimate to be
£4,993.75 (including VAT) as declared in the Final Form
H. He rounded up and said (£5,000 x 150%) costs payable should be
£7,500
- The costs draughtsman persuaded him the figures
should be £6000 x 150% = £9,000
- In 2008 the Court found that the figure of
£4,993.75 actually included £1,823.60
of OTHER costs. The court found that the solicitor had
misled District Judge Rutherford over costs as long ago as
2003. I was RIGHT all along, it seems.
- The costs draughtsman had SEEN the Time
Ledger AND the bill for £1,823.60 and KNEW all
along that the REAL "estimate" of Ancillary Relief costs was only £4,993.75 -
£1,823.60 = £3,170.16
- £3,170.16 x 150% = £4,759.74 - the costs
draughtsman tricked D J Brookes into making an order that I must pay 150% of
their Client's OTHER costs. The Client had already PAID the
£1,823.60 so the solicitors would get paid TWO AND A HALF
TIMES FOR THE SAME WORK - work which was "no order for
costs"
So... what happens when a judge who makes a "Leigh"
type decision is:
- Misled over the real REASON for the increase
between estimates and bill?
- Misled over the true SIZE of the original
estimate
Where is the Case Law that deals with this
eventuality?
All of THIS against a single parent, litigant in
person by so called professional family
practitioners.
I am clear that judges do not like to hear about
solicitor misconduct. In 2005 H H J Cardinal described FDC Law's conduct
as "Incompetent" and "At times woeful" but looked no further. In 2008 the
court accepted that FDC Law had "totally ignored" the Client Care Code -
professional negligence and inadequate professional
service - but dismissed this without ANYsanctions. It may
well be that these judges truly believe that brushing solicitor misconduct and
negligence "under the carpet" is the BEST thing for the legal profession.
With respect - this is not so and does NOT deliver JUSTICE.
Please come to the Court
of Appeal on 22/04/2010 and witness what happens. I have 20 minutes.
Please help me to obtain a precedent that will protect the public from gross
profiteering by lying solicitors... just by being
there.
I am sending this to some ALCD Members (this is
right up their street), some solicitors, some MP's and any press contacts I
can muster.
Please don't leave it to someone else. The
public interest (and, I admit, my own) needs YOU!
Many Thanks
Spenser Poultney (07709) 147206
=========================
More Info here: