Costs Counsel v Costs Lawyer

A recent edition of Costs Lawyer magazine contained an interview with the Association of Law Costs Draftsmen’s new chairman Iain Stark.

In the interview he argues for costs lawyers to reclaim advocacy work on the basis that: “We created the mini costs industry for barristers. That was our own fault, predominantly because we didn’t have our own rights of audience. … We’ve got members who should be out there competing against barristers for these big cases and saying to their clients, ‘Don’t instruct a barrister. I can do this’.” [Ironically, underneath this interview was an advertisement from a set of chambers specialising in costs. I wonder if they paid more or less to have an advertisement placed in that position.]

At the risk of being accused of being a contrarian (me?), I’m not sure I agree with this analysis of the growth of specialist costs counsel.

I’ll start by making two things perfectly clear:

1. Many costs draftsmen are highly accomplished advocates.

2. A formal background or training in the law is not a prerequisite to becoming a skilled costs draftsman. Many will have learnt on the job and many will argue that this is the best form of training.

The big costs cases of recent years have almost all found their way to at least the Court of Appeal (eg Callery v Gray [2001] EWCA Civ 1117, Hollins v Russell [2003] EWCA Civ 718, Claims Direct Test Cases [2003] EWCA Civ 136, Myatt v National Coal Board [2006] EWCA Civ 1017, etc). In fact, the rights of audience of costs lawyers extends only up to High Court Judge or Circuit Judge level. Costs lawyers still do not have the same rights of audience as barristers and have no automatic right to appear in the Court of Appeal in the “big cases”.

In the past, and long before law costs draftsmen obtained automatic rights of audience via the costs lawyer route, costs draftsmen happily appeared in the courts on detailed assessment. This was during a period when legal costs law was relatively straightforward. Most disputes came down to little more than arguments about the number of letters written or time claimed. The “traditional” law costs draftsman was more than happy to deal with this type of case.

The landscape then totally changed with the introduction of the Access to Justice Act and the dawn of the Costs Wars.

Not only did CFA challenges considerably raise the stakes (having a bill totally wiped out is on a totally different level to simply making some inroads into the quantum), but the law in this area became infinitely more complex. Indeed, arguably, much of the mini costs industry was created by the ingenuity of specialist costs barristers coming up with ever more complicated lines of attack. Many “traditional” costs draftsmen, particularly in the past, will have had no formal legal training and would have been totally incapable of grappling with some of the more complex costs arguments.

Has the position radically changed in recent years? I come across various costs draftsmen from time-to-time, some ALCD members some not, who are incapable of arguing serious points of law. Many arrive at court without a copy of the White/Green Book or any copy of the CPR. I am no longer surprised at the total inability of some costs draftsmen to understand what a judgement says or doesn’t say (Hollins v Russell – disclosure of CFAs and “genuine issue” anyone?).

It remains routine for specialist costs counsel to attend detailed assessments to deal with the “difficult” legal points and for a costs draftsman to also appear in the same case to deal with the rough-and-tumble of the rest of the assessment (doubling the cost). This has nothing to do with rights of audience. It is an acknowledgment that the barrister will be better able to deal with the “legal bits” and the costs draftsman deal with the rest.

The pattern becomes even starker in costs appeals. Other than appeals just to costs judge level, my opponents on costs appeals are invariably specialist costs counsel. Again, this has nothing to do with rights of audience. Not being a costs lawyer until recently, I did not have automatic rights of audience in higher courts. However, I have never previously found this to be a bar to appearing. The court invariably grants permission to appear.

On occasions, the reliance on counsel can be understandable on the basis that a claim can move into areas of law (say consumer credit agreements) that are not directly costs related. Those who practice solely in the field of legal costs may find themselves outside their comfort zone (myself included) when a totally new area of law arises. Counsel may be far more comfortable dealing with a combination of legal areas, not all of them costs related.

The second reason why reliance is placed on barristers, as opposed to costs lawyers, is no doubt due to their perceived advocacy skills. Again, although many “traditional” costs draftsmen may have been happy to appear in chambers before a judge making limited submissions as to the number of letters written or whether 36 minutes was a more reasonable period of time to spend reading a medical report rather than 48 minutes, the world of costs has moved on.

Regional Costs Judge, Chris Lethem, at the ALCD National Conference, discussed key skills for an advocate. Some of this guidance was repeated in Costs Lawyer magazine. The Senior Courts Costs Office, in advance of this talk, asked him to cover some of their bugbears. These included:

• You should address your submissions to the judge, not to each other; and
• Do not tell the court that you think the base costs are entirely reasonable, or anything prefaced with “in my opinion”. “Your opinion”, concluded Judge Lethem, “is irrelevant”.

The fact that these observations even needed to be made is revealing. Barristers have already been taught this kind of thing. They don’t need to be addressed on these issues at their AGM.

Of course, the impact of skilled advocacy on detailed assessment is often of limited value. Many cases are decided long before either advocate has opened their mouth and/or regardless of the submissions made. If cases were decided based solely on the quality of the advocacy, I may have won many cases I did not. (Conversely, I may have also lost a number I managed to win.)

Advocacy skill is therefore often largely irrelevant in routine disputes concerning time claimed, etc. However, once one moves into the area of difficult points of law, a skilled advocate can make a real difference.

I have now attended the ALCD’s two-day Costs Lawyer course. A whole day was spent on advocacy training. Enough for those who have no previous advocacy training to compete with the Bar?

None of this is to suggest that using specialist costs counsel is a necessary alterative to good costs draftsmen. The question will come down to the issues at stake, the skill of the individual and the relative cost compared with instructing counsel. The idea of many costs draftsmen (up to and including many costs lawyers) saying “I can do this” in big cases fills my heart with dread. Some can. Most probably can’t and fortunately don’t pretend otherwise.

The ALCD has already made huge advances with its training programme. I have previously commented on the high standard of the Fellowship examination. To properly compete with barristers, the ALCD (whose members of course now include a number of practising barristers) needs to be confident that its members (at least at costs lawyer level) are as skilled, both legally and in terms of their advocacy, as barristers. That is indeed a challenge for the new chairman. There is no reason to suppose the task is out of reach but it will require some brave decisions.

* This post was written before the ALCD announced its decision to automatically upgrade Associates to the status of Fellow.

11 thoughts on “Costs Counsel v Costs Lawyer

  1. The “value” of the title Cost Lawyer, was always seriously undermined by the fact that you attend for a 2 day course, and gain the title without any further qualification or test

    For the ALCD to further weaken its own credibility, by elevating Associates without further ado, is another faux pas which simply fortifies why, in simple terms, draftsmen are loosely tolerated but generally not trusted

    As in all careers/ professions, there are good draftsmen and bad draftsmen. A cheaply derived title does not alter the fact. I still recall chuckling at being “threatened” by one firm that if I didnt accept their “reasonable proposal” then they would be sending their Cost Lawyer to “dispose of my arguments” at the hearing! She came and lost

    It is a concern, that the Association have taken the step of commenting like this, as it will embolden some of their Cost Lawyers and new Fellows to think they are suddenly transformed into skilled Advocates, or the purveyors of wisdom and knowledge sufficient to understand, let alone construct, valid arguments, on the more technical issues which are about, or are in the pipeline. The damage to an already unstable reputation, may well hasten implementation of parts of Jackson, if only to finally rid the system of draftsmen in the main.

  2. Luckily enough I have no confidence in my ability to undertake even the most menial of cost drafting task, therefore I will gladly delegate to a costs counsel. Sorted!

  3. All good points I have to say.
    There are very few very good costs draftsman advocates. I have probably been against 2 in my 10 years of conducting costs claims.
    It may sound unpalatable but the bar is just streets ahead in terms of skill and (dare I say it?) intellect. Your average barrister will have impeccable qualifications- usually a very good degree from one of the best universities in the country, followed by a VC on the BVC. The race for pupillage is so fiercely competitive that by the time the young barrister obtains tenancy (particularly at a respected London chambers) you really are looking at someone who is intellectually brilliant and already has very good advocacy skills.
    Then the young barrister is in court almost every day, perfecting his craft.
    How can costs draftsmen compete?
    Solicitor advocates have found it tough enough to be respected as advocates. Once again, especially in the case of younger solicitors, you are dealing with lawyers who have impeccable academic credentials and have fought off fierce competition to become fully qualified.
    I’m sorry but the ALCD is in danger of simply being laughed at when it asserts that it can replace counsel.
    P.S. When it automatically upgrades old associates and allows them to be costs lawyers after a 2 day course matters border on the farcical.

  4. What is not being appreciated here is that the Costs Lawyer course can only be taken once the individual has undergone the ALCD student course (currently 3 years), passed the necessary exams and also have been involved in legal costs as a full time profession for at least 7 years. Only then are these qualified and experienced Fellows of the Association of Law Costs Draftsmen (those draftsmen with FALCD after their name) permitted to take the two day course.

    However it does seem to me that the Costs Lawyer title is one which is extremely easy to obtain, once the prerequisites are in place. Perhaps the Association should consider implementing more comprehensive, and therefore more respectable training before allowing a member to become a costs lawyer.

  5. the last poster, obviously has missed the fact of the ALCD many years ago allowing Fellowship by interview rather than study, just to boost its numbers to fall in line with the requiremnt to show they were largely representative of the whole costs industry – so much for study!

    their most recent moves with Cost Lawyers and elevating Associates, follows the same pattern.

    And on the subject of the supposed excellence of Counsel as advocates, I routinely oppose Counsel at hearings, as no doubt many of you do, and have found it is just the same, there are good advocates, and bad ones

    the whole point is, having a title, be it Fellow, cost Lawyer, or Counsel, does not make you good

  6. In attempting to elevate yourself by undermining the intellectual capabilities of a Costs Lawyer/Draftsman; or anyone else for that matter; shows very poor form indeed and simply enforces the comments made by Anonymous on 24th July 2010, that some Counsel are perhaps better at making their point than others.

  7. What an awful piece!

    Has a costs draftsman given you the beating of your life at Court recently?

    I am an FALCD and have put many poor ‘Costs Counsel’ to the sword on ‘technical arguments’.

    Get your chin up.

  8. Pingback: Costs Counsel v Costs Lawyer – ALCD Responds : GWS – Defendant law costs draftsmen, legal costs consultants, costs lawyers, legal costs negotiators, law costs draftsman

  9. Pingback: Costs Counsel v Costs Lawyer – Round Two : GWS – Defendant law costs draftsmen, legal costs consultants, costs lawyers, legal costs negotiators, law costs draftsman

  10. Pingback: Friston v Cook |

  11. Pingback: Costs Lawyers v Law Costs Draftsmen | Legal Costs Blog

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>