Tag: cop assessments

What you need to know about reductions to COP assessments

Lydia MarshallLeave a comment

At Clarion, we deal with over 2,000 COP bills of costs per year and we monitor reductions upon assessment. Every case is different, but you do not need to accept the reductions made to your bill of costs if these are excessive or unreasonable alternatively, you can request a reassessment if appropriate to do so. We recognise the hard work that COP practitioners put into their matters and are passionate about working with our clients to help them recover fair and reasonable costs. Based on our experience, we have identified reductions which we think should be on your radar.

Reductions to the Document Schedule

It is common for time spent preparing documents to be reduced or disallowed where the Costs Officer considers it to be excessive, but it may be necessary to challenge these reductions. If you can provide reasonable justification as to the time spent, the necessity of the task at hand and the grade of fee earner undertaking the task, then it can be beneficial to provide more information to the Costs Officer and request that the reduction is reconsidered. Reductions which we have seen take a rising in recent assessments include disallowing time spent reviewing invoices and incoming correspondence, time spent conducting file reviews and time spent reconciling bank statements therefore, this is something you may see largely when receiving your assessment back from the SCCO.

Contact with Internal Teams

It is not uncommon for the Deputy to require support from another area of expertise in a management period or application. Examples could include the Conveyancing Team in respect of property matters, or the Employment Team regarding the directly employed care staff.  The contact with internal teams is commonly reduced as ‘inter-fee earner communication’, however this contact is often essential in progressing the matter. If an external team were to be instructed, the time would likely be much more costly, therefore the instruction of the internal team can often be in the Protected Party’s best interests. It can be beneficial to advise the Costs Officer of the situation and the necessity of the internal teams’ assistance, to allow them to reconsider reductions appropriately.

Lack of Evidence

Whereby the Costs Officer strikes out time due to the ‘lack of evidence’, ‘no file note’ or simply that the entry is ‘vague’. This should be challenged by providing the relevant file notes to allow the Costs Officer to decide whether the time was reasonable in context of the work completed. Evidence for all work done should be on file, but if something is missed, this can be provided retrospectively which allows the Costs Officer to reconsider the time they disallowed.

Reductions to Contact with the Protected Party/Family/Friends

A common reduction is excessive contact with the Protected Party, their family or their friends where a general reduction under the Trudy Samler decision may be applied.  A high level of contact may be necessary for a number of reasons. The Protected Party might call the fee earner very regularly, a family member may act as the main point of contact, or if there is ongoing Litigation, a family member/friend may be acting as Litigation Friend. If there are reasons behind the high levels of  contact, they should be set out to the Costs Officer to justify it and show that the time spent was proportionate to the matter.

Two Fee Earners in Attendance

It is not uncommon for two fee earners to attend a meeting however, it is unlikely that the Costs Officer will allow time for both fee earners unless under exceptional circumstances. There are some circumstances where we would deem the time claimed for both fee earners to be reasonable for example, if the other party were violent, two fee earners may be required for safety reasons, if the other party had made false allegations against the Deputy, it may be essential for a second fee earner to attend or if the party spoke a different language, it may be necessary for a bilingual fee earner to attend the meeting in order to translate. In the right case, with the provision of evidence to support the necessity of both fee earners in attendance, this reduction could be challenged.

Blended Hourly Rates

Where a higher grade fee earner has undertaken a large portion of work within the bill, a blended hourly rate may be applied to allow for sufficient delegation. There are many complex matters involved with managing the affairs of a Protected Party. Some examples of particularly complex matters required during a management period may be the sale and/or purchase of a property, investigation into misconduct of a previous attorney or high tensions with the involvement of the Protected Party’s family. Under complex matters, it may be necessary to utilise the expertise of a higher grade fee to limit the overall costs therefore, it could be beneficial to provide evidence as to the complexities at hand to allow the Costs Officer to reconsider the expertise which was required.

We are happy to advise any professional Deputy who is unhappy with the outcome of their assessment and continue to work with law firms nationally to help them recover fair and reasonable costs. Please contact Lydia for more information at lydia.marshall@clarionsolicitors.com

Reductions to COP assessments and what you need to know about them

Casey McGregorLeave a comment

At Clarion, we prepare over 2500 Court of Protection bills of costs per year to be assessed by the Senior Court Costs Office. We also review the bills once they have been assessed and monitor the common reductions. Based on our experience, we have identified the 5 most common reductions and the reasoning behind the same. The below 5 reductions are in line with published case law and are therefore not likely to be allowed if a re-assessment is requested.

Arranging payments

You may notice that arranging payments are reduced throughout the bill of costs. This is in line with the Case of Jamie Walker (2002) whereby Master O’Hare defined checking the file to ensure an invoice has not already been paid, checking sufficient funds are in the account and writing a cheque and getting it signed as non-fee earner work. Arranging payments and considering invoices are typically reduced to 3 minutes within the bill of costs at Grade D rates in line with this. We therefore suggest payments and considering invoices are delegated to a Grade D fee earner. This is something that the Professional Deputies Forum would like to challenge in the future, as significant payments require consideration and often approval above Grade D rates. We hope that this case law will be reconsidered in the future.

Enclosure letters

Where you may have sent a letter enclosing payment of an invoice or an email confirming settlement of an invoice, this will be classed as an ‘enclosure letter’. In line with the case of Leighanne Radcliffe (2004), letters were reduced from the standard rate of 6 minutes to 3 minutes within the bill of costs. We therefore recommend that enclosure letters are delegated to a junior fee earner and the time is limited where possible to prevent overbilling.

Two fee earners at an attendance

If you have claimed two fee earners in attendance, in our experience, it will only be allowed in exceptional circumstances. Typically, the second fee earner’s time is struck out or reduced. In the case of Garylee Grimsley (1998) and further to R v LegalAid Board Ex Parte Bruce (1991), two fee earners at an attendance were reduced as it was deemed to be duplicative work. It stated, “in so far as expense is involved in adding to this stock in trade, it is an overhead expense and not something that can be charged to the client”. Therefore, we recommend that two fee earners should only be claimed at an attendance whereby it is necessary and reasonable to do so, as there is a higher cost to the Protected Party. Cases where two fee earners may be considered reasonable are where there is a significant safety risk or the second fee earner has different expertise, but this time is still subject to assessment and it’s important that the reasoning is clear within your file notes to justify the attendance of both fee earners.

High level of contact with the Protected Party

You may see a reduction occur whereby there is a high level of contact with the Protected Party, as it is seen to be the Deputy’s duty to keep the costs at a minimum for the Protected Party. Excessive contact would lead to a higher level of costs, which is not in the best interests of the Protected Party. A reduction could occur in line with the case of Trudy Samler (2001). This case raises the question of whether the contact was instigated by the Protected Party and whether the Deputy should be paid for such contact. Excessive contact with the Protected Party could therefore be reduced due to this case and we recommend that Deputy’s keep an eye on this. We recommend that Deputies try and manage the levels of contact with any party and involve other professionals to support the Protected Party or their family in order to manage costs.

Record keeping

Work in relation to updating the Protected Party’s financial records is typically reduced by the Costs Officers on assessment. In the case of Philpott (2015- unwritten), Master Haworth stated “It seems to me that the inputting of data into P’s ledger is not fee earning work. At most it is bookkeeping which, to my mind, is an overhead of a solicitor’s practice. This work has to be distinguished from for example, reviewing or perusing the data to come to a decision as to what then needs to be done with a P’s funds. To my mind that may well amount to fee earning work for which the solicitors can charge separately at the appropriate rate.” Therefore, we recommend that the work is distinguished in this way in order to avoid the reduction on assessment and the word ‘updating’ should also be avoided.

We are happy to review the assessed bills and provide advice to any professional Deputy who is not happy with the outcome of their assessment. Please contact Casey for more information at casey.mcgregor@clarionsolicitors.com