Costs News

20 June 2019
go back

News in brief - 20.06.2019

Have your say

The ACL is carrying out its regular survey of members’ views on the state of the market and other key issues. If you did not fill it out at the London conference earlier this month, we would be grateful if you could spend five minutes doing it online here.


Call for new Council members

Following the recent decision by the ACL Council to increase the number of council members, there are now two vacancies that need to be filled. Full members have been invited to nominate themselves for election. Forms were sent out by email earlier this week and nominations must be received (by post or email) by no later than 4pm on Thursday 27 June. For any queries, emails


Cold-calling ban explained

The reason for the Costs Lawyer Standards Board (CLSB) revising the Code of Conduct to be clear that Costs Lawyers may not cold-call lay persons has become clear.

The minutes of a board meeting earlier this year said it acted in response to an allegation made of cold-calling by a Costs Lawyer. This followed on from reference to a disciplinary case in which a Costs Lawyer was alleged to have made a cold-call, but the complaint was not proven. However, the unnamed Costs Lawyer was found in breach of principle 5.1: “You must be open, honest and co-operate in your dealings with the CLSB, ACL, other regulators and the Legal Ombudsman responding to any requests promptly and fully within 14 calendar days.”

The minutes said a warning letter was issued on compliance with principle 5.1 and the Costs Lawyer was ordered to pay the CLSB fixed costs in the sum of £1,000.

A second disciplinary case was also reported, in which Kerry-Anne Moore was said to have had an “incorrect understanding of reserved legal activity rights under the Legal Services Act 2007”. She agreed to sign an undertaking to ensure this did not occur again, and pay costs of £250. As a result, the scheduled conduct committee hearing was vacated.

Ms Moore said the complaint was not connected with the recent Brethertons case but declined to comment further.


There are no comments. Why not be the first?

Add your comment

go back