Tag: #law

Avoiding Challenges to your Costs IV: Time Recording

Joanne Chase3 Comments

Time spent time recording is time well-spent. Time recording can sometimes seem onerous, particularly when in the midst of tackling some complex and urgent legal problem. However, good time recording supports strong recoveries and avoids client challenges to costs.

This is the fourth blog in a series covering various aspects of solicitor / own client relationships. You can find the other blogs here:-

Avoiding Challenges to your Costs I: Invoicing Clients

Avoiding Challenges to your Costs II: What is an Invoice

Avoiding Challenges to your Costs III: Talking about Money

What is Time Recording?

Time recording and attendance notes are often combined, but they are actually separate. Attendance notes are to keep a record of discussions and reviews of documents for the lawyer to refer to later. For example, recording the client’s instructions in relation to making an offer. The purpose of time recording is to record and justify the time spent.

Why Record Time?

Whenever a solicitor raises an invoice to their client (see Avoiding Challenges to your Costs I: Invoicing Clients) the client has a right to challenge those costs. We will consider the test for challenging costs in more detail in a future blog, but in short it is whether the costs claimed are reasonable. Alternatively, the client may be able to recover their costs from the other side.

In either case, the solicitor’s time may ultimately come under scrutiny. High quality time recording notes protect the solicitor’s time from challenge.

Key Elements of Time Recording

Every firm has different styles and standards of time recording, but it should always contain a few key elements:-

  • Who did it;
  • When it was done;
  • How Long it took;
  • What you did; and
  • Why you did it.

Most time recording will include Who, When, and How Long, but What and Why are often overlooked and sometimes missed out completely. By keeping in mind why you are time recording, you will avoid these mistakes.

How to Time Record

The Who, When and How Long will usually be recorded automatically. The What and Why will usually require the fee earner to write some kind of narrative. A time recording note does not need to be long, and in fact should usually be kept short. For example:-

Call to the client to discuss the opponent’s offer dated 1 June 2021

This note gives plenty of information to explain what was done and why it was necessary. It is clear that it was a telephone call, and that the purpose was to consider an offer.

It is also usually better to refer to individuals by their status in the proceedings rather than by name. For example, “call to Counsel” rather than “call to Steve”. This is because time recording notes are usually for the benefit of someone who was not directly involved in managing the proceedings. Using names can make it hard for a client or judge to follow, particularly when there are a lot of different people such as witnesses, experts, counsel and parties involved.

Summary

Good time recording leads to better recovery and fewer client challenges. Practicing good time recording, and training new staff to time record effectively will pay dividends in recovery rates and avoid challenges.

You can find out more about our services here or you can contact the Costs Team at CivilCosts@clarionsolicitors.com

Footballers’ wives and their extraordinary budgets

Bethany CollingsLeave a comment

In the much-publicised libel claim of Rebekah Vardy v Coleen Rooney, each party was required to file a costs budget that detailed the costs incurred to date and the amount of costs they estimated would be incurred to trial.

The budgets were considered by Master Eastman at a brief preliminary hearing on Tuesday. Mrs Rooney’s sought estimated costs in the sum of £402,312 whilst Mrs Vardy’s budget sought estimated costs in the sum of £465,842. In addition, Mrs Vardy had incurred circa £431,000 in costs pursuing the claim to date.

Defending the level of costs stated within Mrs Vardy’s budget, Ms Mansoori, who is the barrister representing the Claimant, said that the budget “reflects the complexity, scope and scale of the legal and factual issues”.

Master Eastman commented that both budgets were “extraordinarily large”, and he urged the parties to try and reach an amicable agreement in the matter. He also ordered that revised costs budgets be filed in June.

90% Payment on Account where there is a costs budget “Still the Norm”

Bethany CollingsLeave a comment

Earlier this week, following the judgement in Puharic v Silverbond Enterprises Ltd [2021] the High Court confirmed that a 90% payment on account of costs was a reasonable sum for the claimant paying party to have to advance to the successful defendant receiving party. The Claimant had initially offered 50%.

Gavin Mansfield QC, sitting as Deputy Judge of the High Court, said: “the Claimant’s proposal fails to have regard to the developing body of law as to the relationship between costs management and detailed assessment“ and went on to comment that at detailed assessment, pursuant to CPR 3.18, the court will not depart from the approved or agreed budget unless there is a good reason to do so per MacInnes v Gross [2017]. In this case it was found that approved budgeted costs should only be reduced by a maximum of 10%.  Thomas Pink Ltd. v Victoria’s Secret UK Ltd [2014] was also referenced as an example of where 90% of the approved budgeted costs were awarded.

As no submissions were made by the Claimant in the Puharic case to suggest that there would be a good reason to depart from the approved budget, 90% of the approved budgeted costs were ordered to be paid as an interim.

In relation to incurred costs by the time of the CCMC, the Judge asserted that the same point was not applicable as these costs were not subject to the court’s approval. Guidance in accordance with the case of Excalibur Ventures LLC v Texas Keystone Inc [2015] was followed instead. The incurred costs related to the pre-action, issue/statement of case and CCMC phases. The Defendant’s incurred costs of £11,010 for the CCMC phase were recorded in the CMO as “a little high for that phase, but not significantly so” and £10,000 was deemed to be reasonable. There were no issues noted in relation to the pre-action or issue/statements of case phases and so 70% of the incurred costs were deemed a reasonable sum for the purposes of an interim payment.

In relation to the PTR phase, the Defendant sought only 50% of its budgeted costs, because even though work was carried out in this phase, the hearing was vacated.

The Claimant was ordered to make a payment on account of costs in the sum of £187,121.13.