Source: http://www.gwslaw.co.uk/2013/03/negotiating-legal-costs/
Timestamp: 2018-07-21 21:04:10
Document Index: 724995159

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 8', 'art 18', 'art 47', 'art 8', 'art 8', 'art 8', 'art 7', 'art 8', 'art 8']

Negotiating legal costs - GWS Law
Home » Legal Costs » Negotiating legal costs	»
By admin on Mar 27, 2013 | 25 comments
I would have settled for £8,500.00 if you had pushed a bit harder. You were obviously swayed by my signing off every letter with a kiss.
Did they come back to you with detailed assessment costs?
No. Non-litigated.
Your reputation is obviously preceding you Simon. As a side note, your original letter should have been signed Gibbs Wyatt Stone. Just saying…
As a Costs Lawyer, probably not.
Hmm good point, but you never see a firm of solicitors signing off a letter with the solicitors name – no names are ever included its always
Ps. Trust me, one day you might be truly eminent as well!
I should have clarified – the letter i refer to is a formal letter to the solicitors’ opponent. Of course a letter to the client for example will be
The distinction is that a firm of solicitors has a status of its own in proceedings. The firm will go on record as acting (not the individual solicitor). However, with Costs Lawyers there is no entity regulation. I go on record in my name, rather than my firms. On that basis it probably is correct to sign letters off in my own name where there is not already a firm of solicitors on record.
Interesting point re DA costs.
I am aware of the two schools of thought on this as to whether or not they are payable on non-ligated claims – whats the general concensus here?
On the assessment costs: I have issued Part 8 in the SCCO on the basis of assessment costs only and these were recovered on an indemnity basis.
The value of this mystery claim has not been shown. Nor has the funding method.
That is a large reduction certainly, but I am guessing that the schedule has a high success fee and claims partner rates (perhaps for a more expensive area too), and that both sides realise that the simple nature of the claim only needed a Grade C and a modest success fee.
I’d wager that by far the largest reductions were in rate and success fee and the actual time spent was relatively unaffected.
Dropping Grade A down to C and the success fee coming down from 100% to say 30% would cause such a reduction.
Sounds to me like the claimant solicitor drafted his schedule in accordance with the terms in his retainer (as he should), while fully appreciating the likely awards for rate & SF at assessment.
While the paying party is no doubt pleased at the reduction from the total claimed, the example is more about the sensible pragmatism of the claimant’s solicitor.
I always thought if you end a letter Yours faithfully then you put Mr S Gibbs as the letter is formal. If you are sending a nice letter (Unlikely!) then its Yours sincerely Simon Gibbs!
You are so good at your job Simon. You must be the only Costs Lawyer who achieves these great savings. Your clients must be so proud!! I wonder how many Defendant costs firms are still charging percentage of savings! remember Ahmed and Powell! oh happy days. Lets all hit them with Part 18 requests relating to their retainers to establish if they have any locus standi!
at TEP, I agree
but there was also a decision in Jones v ALCOM which a certain firm likes to quote
Use: “Yours faithfully”. It is used when the recipient is not addressed by name, as in a letter with a “Dear Sir” salutation.
Use: “Yours sincerely”
That is very similar to this situation, which happens an awful lot to me:
D – ‘We note your Bill of £10k and offer £5k’
Me – ‘We will accept £8.5k all-in’
D – ‘We will offer £6k’
Me – ‘Rejected’
D – ‘We will offer £7k’
D – ‘Why will you not negotiate?’
Me – ‘We have, we offered £8.5k’
D – ‘We offer £7.5k’
D – ‘We will draw your conduct to the attention of the Court. You are supposed to negotiate’
Me – ‘We have done’
D – ‘We offer £8k by way of a Part 47 offer’
Me ‘Agreed. Interest and DA costs are £500, shall we just call it £8.5k all in?’
D – ‘Agreed’
We did one were costs claimed £600,000.00. Settled £60,000. There was a good reason for the reduction. We all have success stories. Tell us one that you lost big time Simon. You cant be that good and never lost!!!
It’s a shame that this negotiation masterclass in legal costs will most likely be redundant in 12 months time after the effects of fixed costs on the fast track are fully observed, much like 90% of people employed in the industry.
whats your position on the DA costs – what’s your authority that says not entitled to recover?
Without proceedings in the substantive matter and without Part 8 costs proceedings there are no “detailed assessment” costs as such as detailed assessment proceedings have not been commenced. In the absence of an express agreement that the defendant will pay the costs of those costs negotiations, at the time as settling the origianl costs, where does the right arise? You can’t issue Part 8 on the back of the original agreement that the Defendant will pay the Claimant’s costs as that related to the costs of the substantive matter. If you did issue Part 8 and those were (under the current rules) opposed, the claim would be struck out. What contractual agreement would there be to issue Part 7 on?
This is no different to parties to a substantive claim settling the claim but the agreement being silent as to costs. The court has no power to impose a costs order one way or the other. It’s none of their business.
Typical paying party bias Simon.
You can only include the cost of preparing the bill in the bill of costs. All other costs such as costs negotiation incurred after the substantive work has finished cannot be included.
Are you seriously suggesting that all work pertaining to costs negotiation is irrecoverable?!
It’s perfectly recoverable if the paying party (defendant or claimant) has agreed to pay it. If not, what route is there for recovery? A court not ceased of the dispute, because there are no proceedings, cannot adjudicate on the issue of what the parties should (and could) have agreed.
Well in that case, do you agree, that once Part 8 has been issued all the costs negotiation work will be recovered on the standard basis post service of the bill?
Where Part 8 is issued, all work done dealing with costs post-settlement of the substantive case is to be treated as part of the costs of the detailed assessment proceedings. Where the parties are unable to agree liability for such costs, it is a matter of discretion for the court as to which party (if any) should be awarded such costs – as per Crosbie v Munroe. And for the court to decide whether such costs should be paid on the standard or indemnity basis.
Longman v Feather & Black explores the issue rather well (though only County Court level).