Hmmm, maybe I'm getting confused but I could have sworn that "solicitor-client" was basically a synonym for "indemnity costs" with the meaning being that it was to cover the full costs as agreed between the solicitor and client. Anyone want to correct me here? Plasma 12:35, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The 'indemnity rule' is synonymous for a rule that costs are paid by the loser (see Rickman 'Economics of Cost-Shifting Rules' in Zuckerman (ed), Reform of Civil Procedure, Clarendon Press, 1995 - p328), so presumably indemnity costs mean party-party costs in most jurisdictions; that's certainly the understanding of the term in England.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 16 May 2005
Scope of the article
The opening of this entry is a bit weak: 'the law of costs is typical of common law jurisdictions'.... what does 'typical of' mean in this context? That costs are what the common law is all about??? If it's supposed to imply that other jurisdictions don't have rules on costs recovery or assessment then it's just plain wrong. Perhaps, since the article is obviously about Costs *in Common Law* systems, the title should be changed accordingly...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 27 May 2005
At common law, what duty does a solicitor have to recover the fees of counsel? Are counsel's fees limited to what can be recovered on taxation? If counsel charges a certain amount, part of which is not allowed on taxation, does counsel still have recourse against the solicitor to recover the balance?--shtove 02:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- where there is no contract between solicitor and barrister (as used to be the norm) the solicitor is supposed to ensure they have funds for counsel's fees which they pay regardless of whether they are reduced by taxation. If there is a contract (which is becoming more common) that would govern what happened. I have only twice (in 6 years of practice) seen counsel's fees reduced on taxation. On both occasions in very unusual cases: one was a charge for time spent reading emails that seemed unusual and excessive by counsel for an interested party, the other was a case I was in where two counsel represented similar parties: one had over 10 more years of call than the other. The more senior barrister did all the talking (the other never said anything beyond "I agree"). On taxation it transpired that the junior counsel's fees were higher, which was easy enough to oppose. Usually counsel's fees seem reasonable by comparison with those of the solicitor (I'm just getting to the stage where I charge more than a paralegal doing the photocopying, though not always even now). Francis Davey (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
How can it be said that a cost draughtsman could be as essential as a barrister or solicitor to the success of litigation? A costs draughtsman does an entirely different job once the litigation has been successful. A more accurate expression could be that "a costs draftsman (person) will often play an essential role in maximising the gain from successful litigation, by ensuring the winning party recovers as much of their costs as possible." 188.8.131.52 (talk) 14:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
General re-write & massive expansion of the piece
Over the past week or so, I've taken time to have a general re-write of the piece.
I've massively expanded it, to cover the new CPR costs rules due to the Jackson Report, and attempted to clarify and re-word the other sections.
I've also expanded the references and external links sections.
I think I've covered everything, but will be taking another look for spelling/grammar/formatting/etc.