header-logo header-logo

01 April 2010 / David Burrows
Issue: 7411 & 7412 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

Legal triggers

David Burrows unravels the complexities of solicitors’ retainer contracts

The beginning and an ending of respective solicitors’ retainer contracts are represented by Re Z [2009] EWHC 3621 (Fam) and Buxton v Mills-Owens [2010] EWCA Civ 122, [2010] All ER (D) 242 (Feb). Each case raises important practice issues. Re Z deals with a husband’s application that a firm of solicitors should stop acting for his estranged wife, where a partner in the firm had previously acted for him. Buxton deals with the termination by a solicitor of his retainer contract, and the consequences for the solicitor in terms of being paid.

Re Z makes depressing reading: the elegance and depth of Bodey J’s analysis is beset by resonances of a firm’s concern to keep a wealthy client (costs at the pre-issue stage were around £150,000, to which Mr Z found himself contributing £32,500 towards a particular five-week period (para 48)). Buxton, meanwhile, represents a principled approach—by solicitors and Bar—to termination of a retainer which could no longer be reasonably performed: the costs in issue

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll