Client A instructed Riverbrooke Solicitors (“the Firm”) in an Employment Tribunal claim against her former employer. The Firm’s client care letter, signed by the Second Respondent, identified the First Respondent as the Matter Partner and the Second Respondent as the Matter Manager. It estimated costs at £10,000 if fully contested, or £6,000 plus VAT if settled before the final hearing and stated that updates would be provided every two months if the estimate was exceeded.

On 29 June 2017, the Second Respondent visited Client A at home. Her attendance note recorded that the purpose was to review the trial bundle and that Client A was informed costs had exceeded £30,000. Client A succeeded in her claims for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. A remedy hearing was listed for 7 –8 June 2018.

According to the Applicant’s Rule 12 Statement, on the first day of the remedy hearing the First Respondent informed Client A that a settlement offer of £360,000 had been made by her employer, which she declined. Client A alleged that it was at that point that she was told the Firm’s costs were £85,000.

On 30 July 2018, Client A wrote to the Firm complaining that the costs far exceeded the £10,000 estimate and requested a breakdown. She subsequently terminated the Firm’s retainer.

The Firm subsequently issued a detailed bill claiming £85,573.50 plus VAT and disbursements, totalling £122,240.20. A costs hearing was held on 22 January 2019, but no costs were awarded. On the morning of the hearing, the Second Respondent wrote to Client A informing her that she remained liable for the Firm’s costs despite the retainer having been terminated.

Following a complaint from Client A, the Legal Ombudsman confirmed an agreed outcome on 18 February 2020 under which the Firm would issue a final bill of £10,000 plus VAT and disbursements. The Ombudsman referred the matter to the SRA for investigation.

The SRA subsequently referred the matter to the Tribunal, alleging that both Respondents prepared and delivered a grossly inflated bill of costs. It further alleged that the Second Respondent fabricated the attendance note dated 29 July 2017, and that the First Respondent failed to cooperate with the investigation by not providing information when requested.

Both Respondents denied the joint allegation, and each denied the separate allegation made against them. They asserted that the bill was based on genuine time records and substantial work done, and that Client A was orally updated on escalating costs. The First Respondent denied failing to cooperate, stating that all requested information was eventually provided and that delays were due to procedural misunderstandings. The Second Respondent denied fabricating the attendance note, stating it was typed contemporaneously after handwritten notes were damaged by rain.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the Tribunal found the joint allegation (Allegation 1) not proved against either Respondent. In relation to Allegation 2, brought solely against the Second Respondent, the Tribunal found that allegation proved and determined that the Second Respondent thereby breached the principles of integrity, honesty, and the obligation to uphold public trust. Allegation 3, brought solely against the First Respondent, was found proved, and the First Respondent was accordingly found to be in breach of paragraphs 7.3 and 7.4 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs.