Website: Article removed
A Cardiff law firm criticised for offering to advise people on challenging their solicitors’ fees off the back of the Mazur ruling has removed its promotion of the service.
Damian Clode, a partner at Clodes, said it had done so after receiving “unprofessional communications and attempts to undermine our firm’s professional standing”.
Clodes had said that “if you are a client who believes that a CILEX Lawyer, without specific litigation practice rights, had ‘conduct’ over your litigation, rather than merely assisting an authorised solicitor, you may have significant grounds for concern”.
A lengthy article on its website, advertised on social media, continued: “If it can be demonstrated that the services provided amounted to the unauthorised conduct of litigation, the firm’s entitlement to charge for that specific work may be challenged.
“Clients who are unhappy with the service received, particularly if they believe their case was handled by an individual not legally entitled to conduct litigation, may have a valid basis for challenging solicitors’ fees.”
The firm said it was not seeking “to undermine or diminish the skills, competence, or professionalism of CILEX Lawyers” – indeed, the only other member of staff listed on its website apart from partners Michael, Damian and Victoria Clode is ‘Jess’, a trainee CILEX paralegal.
But it warned that the implications of the unauthorised conduct of litigation extended beyond just fees, warning that clients might not be protected under a firm’s professional indemnity insurance.
Law firms could face regulatory action and reputational damage, while individuals could face criminal prosecution, it went on.
“Many litigators will undoubtedly be reviewing court documents, correspondence, and other information to ascertain the qualifications and authorisation of those purporting to have conduct of litigation on the opposing side. This could lead to challenges being raised in ongoing cases.”
Clodes predicted that law firms would be “compelled to undertake urgent internal reviews of their litigation teams and processes”, and tell clients where they identified “instances of unauthorised conduct”
The article sparked strong responses on LinkedIn, particularly from CILEX lawyers. Gemma Callaway, a CILEX paralegal at Macmillans Solicitors in Cornwall, said she was “absolutely flabbergasted” by it.
“For the most part I have seen the legal community astounded at the ramifications of Mazur, singing [chartered legal executives]/CILEX Lawyers’ praises and questioning how such a decision could be just and fair.
“For a solicitors firm (who employees a Trainee CILEX Lawyer!) to want to throw its professional colleagues under the bus for the sake of a few grand they really must have no respect for the legal community and their peers.”
Liam Bawden, a dispute resolution executive at Foys Solicitors, president of Doncaster’s Junior Lawyers Division and immediate past president of the Doncaster & District Law Society, said Clodes “should be absolutely ashamed of themselves” for the “fundamentally disgusting” article.
Alec Hancock – a chartered legal executive who has practice rights – added: “I want to think that the firm would maybe have a bit of appreciation for the thousands of CILEX fellows who have been affected by Mazur and the stance taken by CILEX Regulation, CILEX and SRA.”
Mr Clode told Legal Futures that the article was published “to provide clarity and guidance to clients regarding the implications of this significant High Court ruling”.
He continued: “Our firm’s commitment is always to inform clients of their legal rights and remedies, especially when a judgment clarifies a fundamental aspect of legal practice.
“Ironically, I suspect that those litigators complaining about the article have written similar pieces themselves on other litigation issues and their own firms will be raising any points that assist in litigation going forward with reference to what appears to be in the profession a highly contentious case.
“Due to the nature of some of the responses we have decided to remove the article. The publication of this article unfortunately led to unprofessional communications and attempts to undermine our firm’s professional standing, which included unacceptable personal targeting of a member of staff.”