Solicitor in person

Malkinson v Trim CA TLR 11 October; NLJ 4 October; SJ 27 September

London Scottish Benefit Society v Chorley [1881–5] All ER Rep 1111 established the principle that where an action was brought against a solicitor who defended it in person and obtained judgment, he was entitled to the same costs as if he had employed a solicitor, except in respect of items which the fact of his acting directly rendered unnecessary. Does the principle apply where the defendant, although a solicitor, did not expend his own time and skill in defending the claim, because the defence was undertaken by one of his partners and by others within his firm? The court held that there was no doubt the principle extended to costs attributable to work done for the solicitor by his clerk, and if a solicitor could charge for his own time and for the time of those he employed (which could include an assistant solicitor), there was no reason why the position should be different if some or all of the work were carried out by one or more of his partners, or by employees of the firm. The time of one partner is of value to another partner, because each partner contributes to the profits of the firm. The time of employees of the firm had to be paid for out of the profits in which each partner was interested.