Conclusion

Ensuring effective and fair control over lawyers’ charges is difficult, even for gov­ernments and corporate clients. Complaints on costs formed the majority of those formerly made to the Law Society and now made to the Legal Ombudsman Service.

The high cost of litigation, which is contributed to by lawyers’ fees, is a key political issue. Governments are charged with securing access to justice, but cannot meet the costs through legal aid. The pressure on the public purse of funding access to justice has two consequences. First, there is an imperative to introduce funding mechanisms that were formerly thought to present a high a risk of lawyer and client conflicts of interest. Secondly, there is increasing pressure for stronger control of lawyers’ fees. These take the form of professional regulation and external measures to control costs, for example, by the courts. Both are likely to increase. Hence, there is likely to be greater use of wasted costs procedures, costs budgeting, costs capping and standard or fixed fees. This is because these procedures can be invoked by defendants or by the courts. They are not, therefore, solely the responsibility of clients to enforce.

²⁴⁹ Solicitors Act 1974, s 68, as amended by the Legal Services Act 2007.

²⁵⁰ Ismail v Richards Butler [1996] QB 711.