Blenheim Trust Company Ltd was appealing against the Greffe’s decision to disallow fees of £521,640 for work carried out by Simon Easton, who had been struck off the roll of solicitors in England and Wales.
Blenheim Trust had been awarded other costs in relation to a six-week trial which found in their favour, but the claim for Mr Easton’s work was disallowed by the Deputy Judicial Greffier on the grounds that Mr Easton was carrying out the work as a solicitor in England while struck off.
In the judgment, the Bailiff, Sir Philip Bailhache, said Mr Easton was an experienced litigation lawyer with wide experience of the dispute which was ‘prolonged, complicated and hard-fought’.
In carrying out the work he had distilled 120 Lever Arch files of documents and produced 50 files of relevant documents.
The Bailiff said: ‘Counsel’s preparation for examination and cross-examination of the witnesses, and for his oral submissions, had been greatly assisted by the work of Mr Easton, whose close knowledge of the factual background was virtually unrivalled.
He continued: ‘While it is possible to quibble that Mr Easton was carrying out the work of a solicitor, rather than as a solicitor, it seems to me that this is in substance exactly what Mr Easton was doing.
Sir Philip emphasised that there was no evidence that Mr Easton was doing anything wrong.
‘He was convicted of offences unrelated to this litigation and sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment.
Subsequently he was stuck off.
‘It may seem curious, I observe in passing, that in England a solicitor may be struck off the roll for gross misconduct yet continue to practise from the firm of solicitors which bears his name as an international legal consultant.
Be that as it may, the undisputed evidence before me is that Mr Easton enquired of the Law Society as to what was permissible and was told that he could continue to offer legal services, provided that he did not hold himself out as a solicitor.
The Bailiff concluded: ‘He has now paid his debt to society and he retains the legal knowledge and experience.
I therefore allow the appeal.
The hourly rate should clearly however be lower than the amount allowable for a qualified and practising English solicitor.
