No Right To Render Statute Bills And Too Many “Breaks In The Chain” To Form A Chamberlain

Key Points

• A solicitor’s retainer is normally an entire contract, entitling remuneration only when all work is completed or the retainer terminated [15]
• Solicitors may contract with clients for the right to issue statute bills during the retainer, known as “interim statute bills” [15]
• Interim statute bills are final bills for the work they cover, with no subsequent adjustment allowed [15]
• Interim statute bills can arise only by agreement or at a natural break in protracted litigation [16]
• Even with a contractual right to issue interim statute bills, it is a question of fact whether any individual bill issued is a statute bill [17]
• Without a contractual entitlement, any interim bill issued is only a request for payment on account [17]
• The burden of proving that a document is a separate bill of costs lies on the solicitor [38] ; Romer v Haslam
• Agreement to interim statute bills should not be readily inferred from mere payment in response to interim bills [38] ; Abedi v Penningtons
• For a bill to be treated as a statute bill, it must be apparent that it is not merely seeking payment on account but is intended to be complete and final for its subject matter [54] ; Richard Slade v Boodia
• The test is not whether a given invoice is final for the charges it represents, but whether it incorporates a final charge for the work it represents. Bills may be described as final for the period they cover, but that amounts to the same thing: they are final and complete for any work performed during that period [55] ; Ivanishvili v Signature Litigation Limited
• Any ambiguity in a retainer should be resolved in favour of the client [144] ; Boodia
• There is no statutory or regulatory obligation to advise a client of the legal consequences of serving an interim statute bill [103] ; Slade v Erlam
• If there is a clear contractual term reserving the right of a solicitor to deliver interim statute bills, they are entitled to do so without spelling out the legal consequences for the client [103] ; Slade
• Whether a contract empowers a solicitor to render interim statutory bills is determined upon normal principles of contractual interpretation [104] ; Ivanishvili
• The status of a bill is not contingent on what a future bill might say [48]
• Properly drawn bills should state the agreed charges, the amount the solicitors intend to charge, and their disbursements [79] ; Karatysz v SGI Legal LLP
• Bills should clearly state sums paid, by whom, when, and in what way, what sum the solicitor claims to be outstanding, and what sum the solicitor is demanding [79] ; Karatysz
• The practice of imposing conditions on the face of a statutory bill is unhelpful; if conditions are to be imposed, they should be transparent [79] ; Karatysz

Key Findings In This Case

• • The retainer did not expressly allow for interim statute bills [163]
  • The retainer documentation was ambiguous regarding billing arrangements [163]
  • Weightmans’ practice of interim billing did not create a right to issue interim statute bills [157-158]
  • The retainer documentation failed to clearly distinguish between payments on account and billing arrangements [171]
  • Weightmans’ invoices did not explicitly state they were interim statute bills [195]
  • The guidance provided on Weightmans’ invoices for challenging bills undermined client protections under the Solicitors Act 1974 [196]
  • The Claimants’ payment of invoices during the litigation did not constitute agreement to raise interim statute bills [203]
  • Overlapping time periods and amounts between Weightmans’ invoices prevented them from being considered final for the periods covered [223]
  • The overlaps in Weightmans’ invoices were not de minimis and could not be disregarded [224-225]
  • A Chamberlain bill was not formed due to multiple breaks in the chain of Weightmans’ invoices caused by overlaps [228]
  • Weightmans’ use of the term “final invoice” did not indicate the completion of a series of interim statute bills [227]
  • Weightmans’ provision of information about complaints procedures alongside references to the Solicitors Act 1974 did not negate the requirement for clarity in their billing practices [188-190]
  • Weightmans’ advised sequence for challenging bills could have caused the Claimants to lose rights under the Solicitors Act 1974 [188-190]
  • Weightmans’ “retention invoices” were not final for the periods concerned as they were subject to potential adjustment [211]
  • Weightmans’ bills containing errors should have been withdrawn, new correctly drafted bills presented, and credit notes issued [222]