In this article, Connor Wright examines how solicitors’ Guideline Hourly Rates (GHR) apply in an era of remote and flexible working.
Introduction
I have recently been asked to consider the factors that are relevant to the inter partes recoverability of the hourly rates. Particularly, it is increasingly important to contend with the application of solicitors’ Guideline Hourly Rates (“GHR”) to firms engaging in remote working. This short note explores this contemporary issue.
The GHRs
Strictly, the GHR were drafted as a starting point for the summary assessment of inter partes costs. The 2021 Guide to the Summary Assessment of Costs[1] remains an illustrative tool for their application. The GHRs are also used as a somewhat more malleable starting point in Detailed Assessment proceedings.
A different approach may be taken during a solicitor-client costs assessment under the Solicitors Act 1974. Solicitor-client costs, per CPR 46.9, are assessed on the indemnity basis. They are also assumed to be reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount if the client has expressly or impliedly approved them. Further, solicitors often include within the retainer a clause that permits the solicitor to recover an amount of costs greater than that which the client could have recovered from the other party to proceedings. As such, with a well-drafted retainer, hourly rates in excess of the GHRs are often recoverable from clients, even if they are not recoverable from the other party to proceedings.
The application of the GHRs generally turns on:
- The location of the fee earner carrying out the work; and,
- The level of qualification of the fee-earner.
An obvious issue, therefore, stems from firms operating remotely, perhaps without a brick-and-mortar office in the traditional format. Increasingly, firms are operating a primarily work-from-home model, or hiring flexible working spaces for use by travelling members of staff.
It is noteworthy that the appropriate GHR is not solely based on a solicitor’s location. For example, the recoverable hourly rate may be discounted if the receiving party unreasonably instructed a London firm.[2] Notably, the Band 1 GHR is defined as appropriate for “very heavy commercial and corporate work by centrally based London firms”. As such, a court may question whether a case could have been completed by a different grade of solicitor, or a solicitor operating in a regional firm at a lower rate.
The 2021 guide states that “[w]here all or part of the work on a case is done in a different location from that of the solicitor’s office on the court record, the appropriate hourly rate for that part should reflect the rates allowed for work in that location, whether that rate is lower or higher… The location of a fee earner doing the work is determined by reference to the office to which s/he is, or is predominantly, attached.” The Guide does not deal with a situation where there is no primary office to which the solicitor is attached. It will likely be relevant, however, if the solicitors for the receiving party incur overhead costs in relation to any office spaces that they operate from.[3] Without those overheads, remote working is likely to lower the recoverable hourly rate.
There is always a risk, on a summary assessment of costs, that the nuances of a remote-working model will not be fully explored. The relevant location for the purposes of summary assessment may even be assumed to be the office address that is used on the court record. Paying parties should be keen to challenge the applicable GHR where there is a risk that the case was litigated remotely. It perhaps goes without saying that, in relation to a given hearing, counsel for the eventual receiving party should be made aware of the file handler’s place of work, in order to best apply for costs. In relation to Detailed Assessment hearings, however, greater detail of overheads and a breakdown of operational costs should probably be provided in evidence.
In reality, the recoverable hourly rate of each remote solicitor will depend on a range of factors, including their personal working location, their experience and expertise, the complexity, urgency and location of the case, and the location of the parties. The practical impact of contemporary models of litigation is that the appropriate GHR is less likely than standard models to be determined by the location of the firm, rather than that of the involved fee earners.
In the event that a case is large and/or complex, it remains arguable that an uplift to the applicable GHR is appropriate, even if the solicitor is based nationally. “Large and complex personal injury” work, for example, may justify an increase to the applicable GHR. The skill, effort, specialised knowledge and responsibility involved, together with the value and complexity of and time spent on the case, are relevant to the reasonableness and proportionality of costs incurred, per CPR 44.4(3). Accordingly, commercial or clinical negligence cases, or cases requiring other heavy litigation, are inherently more likely to be regarded as specialist and complex. That is particularly the case if the file handler is based in the same area as the defendant. For large and time-consuming cases, firms may be justified in increasing their hourly rate, accordingly.
[1]https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Guide-to-the-Summary-Assessment-of-Costs-2021-Final1.pdf <accessed 31st March 2026>.
[2] Wraith v Sheffield Forgemasters Ltd [1998] 1 All ER 82 at para [91].
[3] Otto v Inner Mongolia Happy Lamb Catering Management Co Ltd [2023] EWHC 3151 (Ch).
Whilst every effort has been taken to ensure that the law in this article is correct, it is intended to give a general overview of the law for educational and/or informational purposes. It is not intended to be a substitute for specific legal advice and should not be relied upon for this purpose.
This article represents the opinion of the author and does not necessarily reflect the view of any other member of St Philips Chambers.
