French v Carter Lemon Camerons

A solicitor’s retainer may be terminated where there is good reason, including a wholesale breakdown in confidence, provided reasonable notice is given. A client’s request for detailed assessment of a bill does not, without more, prevent the solicitor from asserting a lien over the client’s papers. An appeal against a case-management hearing will fail where the transcript shows that the judge controlled the hearing fairly, focused on relevant issues and considered the relevant evidence. A solicitor representing the firm in proceedings concerning its own costs is not restricted to litigant-in-person rates.

The claimant appealed against an order of Master Foster concerning the defendant solicitors’ lien over her papers and the costs of earlier hearings. The underlying proceedings concerned the claimant’s contractual claim against Groupama. The retainer had deteriorated amid serious complaints about the solicitors’ conduct, and the claimant challenged the termination of the retainer, the lien, the conduct of the Master’s hearing and the costs order. Permission to appeal was refused on the papers by Nicola Davis J but granted by Kenneth Parker J on an oral application. The central questions were whether the retainer had been terminated regularly, whether the lien remained enforceable, and whether the Master had erred in conducting or assessing the hearing.

1. Appeal dismissed. The defendant solicitors had terminated the retainer regularly. The complaints demonstrated a wholesale breakdown in confidence, rather than a complaint limited to one solicitor which could have been addressed by reallocating the case.
2. At common law, termination by solicitors requires good cause and reasonable notice. This was reflected in rule 2.01(2) of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007. A breakdown in confidence or inability to obtain proper instructions may constitute good reason. The defendant had continued to attend the imminent case management conference and thereafter gave notice that the position would be reviewed before terminating the retainer.
3. The Master was entitled to uphold the lien for unpaid fees. The claimant’s request for detailed assessment under section 64(2)(b) of the Solicitors Act 1974 did not prevent the lien from applying. The detailed assessment would provide the claimant with an opportunity to challenge the amount due.
4. The transcript did not show that the Master had been unfair, intemperate, had prejudged the issues, or had refused to consider relevant evidence. Interruptions were directed to identifying the relevant points and managing a hearing listed for one hour. The Master had also brought the matter forward to assist in resolving it before trial.
5. The costs assessment disclosed no relevant error of principle. The VAT issue did not affect the reasonable overall amount allowed. The submission that the solicitors were limited to litigant-in-person rates was misconceived; the court referred to CPR rules 52.2–52.4 and 48.6.

• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): appeal from Master Foster’s order dismissed.
• High Court: Nicola Davis J refused permission to appeal on the papers; Kenneth Parker J subsequently granted permission on an oral application.