Royal Court critical of high cost of lawyers’ fees

Friday 04 August 2017

Jersey’s Royal Court has criticised the level of lawyers’ fees that a client was asked to pay in a legal wrangle, saying they were so high, he would have had good grounds not to pay them.

In a written judgement which has just been published, the Bailiff, Sir William Bailhache, explains the background to the case, and then goes on to make his comments about the fees.

The case involved four respondents: two of the dead man's children from his first marriage, and two grandchildren. They were unhappy with the terms of the will and were asking the court to settle the issue. 

In his judgement the Bailiff is highly critical of the way the lawyers treated the respondent and the fees they were charging. He writes: "We recognise that the First Respondent was sometimes very difficult and belligerent, but we think that the standard of care offered to her in the administration of the estate was not as good as it could have been.  This is perhaps exemplified by the handling of the funeral expenses – flowers for the deceased which were paid for by the First Respondent were not reimbursed because they were said not to be a funeral expense, and yet the estate accounts show a gravestone chosen sometime after the funeral at the expense of the estate, which is said to contain no wording to the First Respondent as his daughter.  Assuming this to be so, and it has not been denied, that was insensitive to say the least.  It appears to be the case unknown to the First Respondent, that the Representor or his lawyers also permitted the Second Respondent to have a choice of the deceased’s personal effects (which the First Respondent did not want) from storage despite the instruction in the Will that he should have nothing; and that the First Respondent frequently did not receive a response to her communications.  It seems clear that her relationship with the Representor and his lawyers deteriorated at an early stage and while she was undoubtedly difficult to deal with, the fault does not lie entirely on her side."

About the fees he writes: “having reviewed the various time ledgers of Messrs Carey Olsen in relation to this estate, we note that fifteen different fee earners have charged time at different times during the period of administration.  The Court recognises that the larger legal firms in the Island specialise, and that those concerned with the administration of an estate will not be the same as those concerned with litigation.  Nonetheless, to have so many fee earners engaged in what is a relatively small estate raises serious questions about the overall charges.”

Sir William then goes on to note:  “Furthermore, the hourly fee rates, in relation to an estate of this kind, are high, varying from a minimum of £200 per hour to a maximum of £575 per hour; and fee earners appear to have charged time for attending the same meetings, sometimes only with each other.”

Whilst the court acknowledged “that the firm has discounted the total time charges by up to 25%”, it goes on to say “the total which has been charged is such that we do not think it would have been prima facie unreasonable for the First Respondent to have refused to approve both the May 2016 accounts and/or the subsequent accounts.”

Express contacted Carey Olsen who opted not to comment.