header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
02 September 2022 / Dan Stacey
Issue: 7992 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Belsner v Cam Legal: looking back to look ahead

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
92274
As the headline case rumbles on, Dan Stacey explores the courts’ previous stances on the issue of fiduciary duties & solicitors’ remuneration
  • Previous rulings, both before and after the Attorneys’ and Solicitors’ Act 1870, established the position of the courts on fiduciary duties and solicitors’ remuneration.
  • There is no indication that such duties relating to remuneration do not survive into the present.

The ongoing YouTube soap opera of Belsner v Cam Legal in the Court of Appeal is now to have further screenings on 4, 5 and 6 October 2022. It is a convenient opportunity to consider fiduciary duties and solicitors’ remuneration, one of the issues at stake in the appeal. It is suggested here that a solicitor owes a fiduciary duty to deal fairly with the client in respect of remuneration before and during the currency of the retainer.

Fair dealing

First, that a fiduciary duty is owed by a solicitor to a client is not in doubt: eg Clark Boyce v Mouat [1994]

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll