A law firm successfully claimed unpaid fees despite concerns over ‘retrospective’ client-care letters.
- The court examined eight bills, focusing on a significant litigation case involving a Sikh temple.
- Judge Monty KC found issues with evidence from SZ Solicitors’ partners, including Mr Siddhu and Mr Zafar.
- Payments from an authorised account lacked proper documentation and authorisation.
- The judge calculated amounts owed in various cases but noted retainers created post-event.
The contentious legal dispute centred around a West London firm’s attempt to claim unpaid fees, despite the court’s criticisms of the authenticity of client-care letters it presented. The case revolved around significant litigation concerning the ownership and occupation of the Gurdwara Miripiri Sahib in Southall, where the firm represented Mr and Mrs Bharj as defendants.
Judge Monty KC expressed skepticism about the conduct of SZ Solicitors’ partners, Raghwinder Singh Siddhu and Mohammad Saeed Zafar. During cross-examination, Mr Siddhu’s explanations regarding missing ledgers and time sheets were deemed unsatisfactory. His responses suggested a lack of transparency in maintaining client-care records, which the court found troubling.
Additionally, Mr Zafar’s testimony was marked by several inconsistencies. Although he claimed to have maintained attendance notes, none were produced in court. Furthermore, the way he managed receipts from Mr Bharj raised serious concerns. Despite Mr Bharj’s payments, which were accepted to total approximately £150,000, the firm’s ledger accounted for only £52,000, without supporting documentation.
Receipts and payments related to the Gurdwara account, meant for litigation expenses, were managed without proper authorisation. Such discrepancies were contrary to court orders requiring Mr Bharj’s approval for transactions, leading to an evident breach of protocol.
Ultimately, the court determined the lack of formal written agreements between the firm and the clients led to misunderstandings about fixed fees. Though SZ Solicitors argued its costs were calculated based on hourly rates plus disbursements, the evidence suggested a retrospective creation of client-care letters to justify claims.
The court ruled on the fees, delineating £62,600 owed in the major case and additional amounts for other matters SZ handled. However, the firm’s failure to promptly file its costs budget resulted in reduced recoverable amounts, indicative of procedural lapses.
Judge Monty’s decision allowed SZ Solicitors to claim certain costs yet underscored the necessity for law firms to maintain accurate, contemporaneous records to avoid such disputes in future.
Despite winning the fee claim, SZ Solicitors faced critical findings on record-keeping and procedural conduct.
