Perusal

Payment should be made for perusals actually and reasonably done, due regard being had to economy, when chargeable.

In legal aid cases perusal claims shall be charged as a time based charge at the prescribed rate for a solicitor or solicitors clerk for each quarter hour (or part thereof) where they are occupied in carrying out work for the client other than work for which a fee is otherwise prescribed.

For the purpose of this guidance ‘perusal’ should be read to also extend to the viewing of non-documentary material, for example, photos, video/audio material etc.

We consider perusal to cover the reading, digesting and noting of a document by the solicitor or by an unqualified member of staff delegated to carry out the exercise. It is chargeable once.

A claim for perusal cannot therefore be made in respect of such work every time you seek to review that document as the fee allowed for the perusal includes time spent, where necessary, in revisiting those documents.

The same principle applies to perusal of non-documentary material.

Where documentation is received from your client, every effort should be made, in discussion with the client if necessary, to establish that the whole material is relevant to the subject matter of the advice.

In a properly framed account it should be clear what parts of the documentation you required to consider, and what parts required little more than a cursory glance.

Where it is necessary to re-visit documentation, as opposed to reading the document for the first time, and the regulations allow for this, a reasonable fee may be paid depending on the particular circumstances.

For example where there has been a notable passage of time between the initial perusal work and the requirement to revisit the material a reasonable lesser fee for preparation may be allowed for refamiliarisation, unless this is expressly precluded by way of regulation.

The basis for any perusal charge made against the Fund must be based on work actually and reasonably done.

It is not a high test to be satisfied that the work being charged for was ‘actually’ carried out.

If a claim has been made for the perusal of documents received we will assume, in the absence of any other compelling evidence, that the material will have actually been considered.

Our assessment will primarily be focussed on whether the time spent and claimed is reasonable.

Mindful that the taxation standard is to determine what is “reasonable”, and there are manifestly differing views as to what that may mean, it is important to emphasise that the time expended by you is not necessarily the time to be remunerated.

Only the time reasonably expended is to be remunerated: otherwise there is a risk that the inefficient, slower worker, gets better pay for the same work than the efficient worker.

That runs contrary to making payment for work carried out with due regard being had to economy or the principle of allowing for work which a prudent solicitor would claim for in the knowledge that their account was to be taxed.

Perusal charges will be carefully assessed on their own merits having regard to the supporting narrative which has been provided in the account together with any other additional material such as other solicitor’s accounts in the same proceedings, files notes, etc.

We will not allow a separate perusal charge if the document is perused and discussed during a meeting.

The perusal in such cases is covered by the time charge that will be allowed for the meeting.

You must not seek to apply a broad formula based on ‘x’ number of sheets per hour as the basis of a perusal charge.

We will restrict charges, potentially in their entirety, in such cases  and invite you to provide  further information in support of the time that was actually and reasonably spent on perusal.

There is no ‘standard’ rate of sheets per hour, such an approach is not in accordance with the fees regulations and is not, under any circumstances, acceptable as a basis of charging.

We will under normal circumstances expect to see a variation of time across the spread of material that you have reasonably had to consider.

It is recognised that the time taken in perusal will depend on the material and content considered. Simple documents are likely to take less time to read and may require little more than a cursory glance whereas documents of greater complexity are likely to take longer to consider.

As a general rule, the perusal of statements, where appropriate, should reflect a fairly consistent (not formulaic) rate of perusal given the relatively standard format of this material. However, productions, medical or social work records, etc. can vary greatly in nature and content and we would expect the time engaged will equally vary depending on the material considered.

For all aid types, when we are considering the reasonableness of the time claimed, we will take account of the detail provided which indicates particular difficulties relating to the perusal charges.

For example the complex or technical nature of the documents being considered, the quality and layout of the documents, for example, whether the documents are handwritten or typed, single spaced or double spaced, large or small font etc.

It is your responsibility to provide sufficient evidence that the work was reasonably done. In other words, would another solicitor have undertaken the work, has the work been performed in a reasonable manner and was the time taken to do that work reasonable?

In considering the reasonableness of any perusal time charged, a narrative should always be provided within the account detailing:

• the date on which the work is carried out
• clear reference to the document or production number being perused
• the length and nature of the document
• the name and status (qualified or unqualified) of the individual carrying out the work
• the relevance of the document to the client’s case
• format (handwritten etc.); and
• any other factors which may contribute to the time spent.

We will consider whether the account entry or detailed attendance note provided contains sufficient information to justify the time spent or whether there is further detail/explanation which may be required to support the level of fee claimed.

This is particularly important where the perusal charges are significant.

Where the account entry and/or attendance note does not appear to justify the time spent, the claim will either be reduced or disallowed and you will be invited to provide further information in support of the charge.

We will always make payment of the amount that we consider to be reasonable based on the information available pending further information being provided.

In appeal proceedings, where you were instructed at first instance, we do not ordinarily consider it reasonable for all material perused at the first instance stage to be revisited for the purpose of the appeal.

That remains the case even where there is a different solicitor from the same firm instructed at the appeal stage although it is recognised that we would normally expect a solicitor instructed for the first time to spend time for “reading in” the brief unlike the solicitor who has been instructed in the case from the outset.

The scope of any appeal should normally be quite focussed and this will not necessarily require all case materials to be reconsidered.

There may, of course, be circumstances where it can be demonstrated that at the very least some and in exceptional cases all original material will require to be perused and that can be considered on a cause shown basis.

It is your responsibility to justify why that was necessary in the particular circumstances of the case and provide a sufficient narrative in support of any such charges with reference to the factors that should accompany each claim as listed above.

Photographs are clearly not “documents” consisting of words and numbers and therefore are not easily as quantifiable on a sheetage basis.

Nevertheless, a reasonable time charge can be claimed and allowed when those required to be perused.

In considering the reasonableness of any time charged, you should include the following details:

• the date on which the work is carried out
• the number and nature of the photograph(s)/image(s)
• the name and status (qualified or unqualified) of the individual carrying out the work
• the relevance of the photograph(s)/image(s) to the client’s case
• any other factors which may contribute to the time spent.

As with photographs, DVD/CCTV footage, or CD/tape etc. are not “documents” consisting of words and numbers and therefore are not easily as quantifiable on a sheetage basis.  Nevertheless a reasonable time charge can be claimed.

In considering the reasonableness of any time charged, you should include the following details:

• the date on which the work is carried out
• the duration and nature of the DVD etc.
• the name and status (qualified or unqualified) of the individual carrying out the work
• the relevance of the DVD etc. to the client’s case
• any other factors which may contribute to the time spent.

When watching/listening to police interviews it will normally be reasonable to allow the actual running time of the interview itself.

It may be reasonable to allow for time engaged longer than the actual running time if there were perhaps particular issues with the clarity of the content of the interview.

However, there is no ‘standard’ time permitted, such an approach is not in accordance with the fees regulations and is not, under any circumstances, acceptable as a basis of charging.

When considering CCTV footage, subject to the circumstances and justification provided, it should ordinarily be possible for such material to be fast forwarded during periods.

For example, if the footage is of a particular part of a street late at night with little activity, it is not unreasonable to fast forward the CCTV until there is movement.

Such is the quality of modern technology used for recording and subsequently viewing this should normally not be a difficulty and is what we would expect to see. If this was not possible you should explain why in the account narrative.

You should retain, and make available by way of including in/uploading to the account, if requested, all contemporaneous notes taken during the perusal process showing or supporting the outputs and outcomes of the perusal, even if the document perused was ultimately of no or little relevance.

Our position is that it is a necessary component of time spent perusing documentation of any sort that a contemporaneous file note is maintained.

This not only serves the purpose of clearly demonstrating that work has been carried out but would also, presumably, be necessary for the purpose of the solicitor’s own preparations.

The provision of such detail, if required, will allow us to form a view as to whether the charge is reasonable and, therefore, fulfil our responsibilities in the assessment of the account.

The absence of essential information, either in the body of the account itself and/or supported by separate file note will almost certainly lead to charges being reduced  or potentially no offer of payment being made at all for the work in question.

Where there are a number of individuals concerned in perusing documents, we expect that some sort of structured approach has been adopted whereby a proper allocation of work is in place to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort and the resultant unnecessary and unwarranted expenditure of time.

Regard will always be had to times engaged by other solicitors acting for parties involved in the same proceedings where they are considering the same material.

In criminal proceedings, it is a long established approach to perusal charges in a multiple accused case to ensure parity with co-accused.

This approach was validated by the Auditor’s decision in the case HMA v JH and Ors (Paisley Sheriff Court, August 1985) which was also approved by the Sheriff in the subsequent note of objections. We will adopt the same approach in children’s proceedings.

It is recognised that accounts will from time to time vary for perusal charges and where this arises we will, where necessary, seek clarification as to the reasons why that may be so where the supporting narrative, corresponding file entry or any other relevant material available to us is considered to be insufficient to justify either fully, or in part, the charge claimed.

This is particularly important where the difference for the same work activity is significant.

That approach allows us to draw what should be an objective and meaningful comparison in the way a case has been conducted standing our statutory obligation to pay for work “reasonably done”.

We will always make payment of the amount that we consider to be reasonable based on the information available pending further information being provided.

Where consideration of non-case specific material is required it is essential that a narrative is provided detailing what was being considered, why you required to familiarise yourself with that material and to justify the time engaged.

For example, in a case where an expert is employed, justification should be provided to support the consideration of any non-case specific, background material relating to the matter for which the expert has been instructed.

Where documentation is received from the client every effort should be made to establish that the material is relevant to the client’s case.

Where it is determined that material is of relevance, it is essential that a narrative is provided detailing what was considered, why  it was relevant, the nature of the material and what impact it had on the representation.

Any document produced by a client or witness at a meeting and perused and discussed at that meeting will not attract a separate perusal charge since this work is covered by the time charge for the meeting.

The perusal of incoming letters is not ordinarily chargeable.

You can however charge for perusing correspondence addressed to the client or another party, where appropriate or correspondence setting out a decision relating to a hearing which also contains detailed reasons for the decision, and any similar situations.

Under contempt of court legal aid no charge is normally allowed except where a certificate has been issued erroneously by us and you have drawn this to our attention and in those circumstances we will consider a charge, where appropriate.