Apportionment

You may require to apportion charges in an account.

Apportionment in relation to travel is covered separately and more information can be found in our published guidance in relation to travel.

The requirement to apportion charges will ensure that:

• one client does not subsidise another client (eg some grants may be subject to a contribution, or increases in authorised expenditure)
• there is no duplication of charging; and
• the correct fee is charged.

Although not expressly stated in the regulations we may require to exercise our discretion, standing the statutory tests of taxation, to apportion charges where:

• you act for the same party in different proceedings; or
• you act for more than one party in the same proceedings.

Where you act for the same client, in separate actions, but undertake work common to more than one case, the general rule is that only one charge is allowed in relation to attendances, writing letters, etc.

You should therefore apportion charges to reflect the fact that the work covers more than one case.

You should not make a separate charge at the full rate in respect of each case.

Similarly, work which is common to more than one party or one set of proceedings should be apportioned, where appropriate.

Where a single work activity (eg meeting) covers more than one party in the same proceedings you should apportion charges as the work covers more than one case.

You cannot charge in full to each case as that would exceed the time actually spent at the meeting and result in double agency.

Where work is done on behalf of the same client in multiple cases or multiple clients in the same proceedings the work should ordinarily be apportioned equally across the number of cases or clients.

However, we will allow a different apportionment (eg 1/3^rd / 2/3^rd), on cause shown and subject to an explanation as to why an unequal apportionment is being claimed, as long as the charges do not exceed the reasonable sum that is payable in the respective case(s).

In accordance with the decision of Sheriff McGowan following a Note of objections to the decision of the Auditor of Tayside Central & Fife, in the case of PF v Pauline Sleeman 26 September 2011, where you represent a client at a hearing in which the court have conjoined proceedings only one advocacy fee can be charged.

Where this does arise only a single advocacy fee would be payable mindful that it covers “any time …. spent by a solicitor appearing in court or attending a hearing” and not the time spent on an individual case.

Although the above decision related to cases charged in relation to criminal ABWOR post-conviction proceedings, our view is that it can equally be applied to other cases charged under legal aid or ABWOR, where appropriate.

We will only allow a single hearing fee in the absence of any supporting narrative which would otherwise justify more than one fee being claimed.

Where a third party is employed to work across a number of cases (including non-legally aided cases), the payment claimed should be apportioned according to the amount of work done on each case.

For interpreters we will allow charges which are apportioned based on either the amount of work done on each case or equally split between cases.