I was recently advised that in a Points of Dispute in response to a bill of costs, the paying party objected to the fact that a CILEX Lawyer has signed the bill. It was their proposition that only a Solicitor could sign a bill of costs. To add further context, this CILEX Lawyer was in fact a CILEX Litigator and Advocate in civil proceedings (not me). So not only were they a regulated lawyer, they had the right to conduct litigation.
Rules, rules, rules
The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) still contain language that assumes the lawyer conducting the litigation is either a solicitor or is supervised by a solicitor. This was accurate in the late 1990s, but it is no longer the case. For example:-
- CILEX Lawyers can now obtain the right to conduct litigation, which means they are no longer required to have compulsory supervision
- Barristers can also obtain the right to conduct litigation.
Both of the individuals above may be the only authorised persons within a legal firm permitted to conduct litigation. This can be done through CILEX Entities, which are regulated by either CILEX Regulation Limited, or BSB Entities, regulated by the BSB.
What happens if the sole authorised person needs to do something which CPR says should be undertaken by a Solicitor? This is precisely the issue with the signing of a Bill of Costs.
In Precedent F of Practice Direction 47 (because there is no specific rule) it says:-
All certificates must be signed by the receiving party or by his solicitor. Where the bill claims costs in respect of work done by more than one firm of solicitors, certificate (1), appropriately completed, should be signed on behalf of each firm.
I am sure the first point to note is that it is gendered (and it ought to be gender-neutral in this day and age). The second is that it is restricted solely to a Solicitor who can endorse the certificate, other than the receiving party themselves.
So what happens when a law firm is not an SRA firm, does not have any Solicitors and a Bill of Costs needs to be signed?
The closest rule/direction to considering who can sign a bill of costs is PD44 para 1.1:-
In respect of any document which is required by Practice Directions 44 to 47 to be signed by a party or that party’s legal representative, the provisions of Part 22 and Practice Direction 22 relating to who may sign apply as if the document in question was a statement of truth. Statements of truth are not required in assessment proceedings unless a rule or Practice Direction so requires or the court so orders.
Who falls within the definition of a legal representative? CPR 2.3 can assist us here:-
‘legal representative’ means a –
(a) barrister;
(b) solicitor;
(c) solicitor’s employee;
(d) manager of a body recognised under section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 19859;or
(e) person who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 200710, is an authorised person in relation to an activity which constitutes the conduct of litigation (within the meaning of that Act),
who has been instructed to act for a party in relation to proceedings;
This is a significantly broad scope because anyone who a Solicitor employs could sign a cost document which requires a statement of truth. However, there is something that would justify the above, that is s69(2A) of the Solicitors Act 1974:-
A bill is signed in accordance with this subsection if it is—
(a)signed by the solicitor or on his behalf by an employee of the solicitor authorised by him to sign, or
(b)enclosed in, or accompanied by, a letter which is signed as mentioned in paragraph (a) and refers to the bill.
This is, of course, concerning Solicitor-Client billing, but it does carry some weight as to why someone who is not a Solicitor may sign a bill.
The person who brought this to my attention had relied (in their reply to the points of dispute) on the case of Gempride Ltd v Bamrah & Anor [2018] EWCA Civ 1367. If the Solicitor ( a sole practitioner) was ultimately liable for the accuracy of the bill of costs (which was drafted by someone else), then the liability for any inaccuracies fell with that Solicitor.
If a Solicitor authorises a non-Solicitor employee to sign a bill of costs, the Solicitor would still retain the liability. The same principle applies if a Barrister or CILEX Lawyer with litigation rights authorises a non-qualified employee to sign. Hickinbottom LJ appears to think so:-
“Although only an extension of the conventional principles of agency into the particular statutory field with which we are concerned, at a time when new business practices mean that solicitors are more frequently subcontracting work out to the unauthorised, it seems to me to be an important matter of principle that solicitors on the record – and other authorised litigators and “legal representatives” for the purposes of the CPR – understand that they remain ultimately responsible for the acts and omissions of those to whom they delegate parts of the conduct of litigation, particularly where those to whom such work is delegated are not authorised”
I would like to think that a Solicitor or authorised litigator would not want to risk personal responsibility for an erroneous bill because they did not check it themselves. In principle, I cannot see how it is an issue. The end result is the same.
As I said, I do think that CPR ought to be updated to reflect the fact that for some time, other authorised litigators have existed and will continue to increase in numbers (especially as CILEX lawyers who qualify via the new CPQ route will automatically be granted that practice right in their area of litigation).
Information
AJH Advocacy Limited, a Limited Company which is regulated by the Bar Standards Boards (entity number 190758), ceases trading on the 12th January 2026.
From the 12th January 2026 and onwards, Alec Hancock will practice as a Barrister at Magdalen Chambers in Exeter. For instructions on matters on or after 12th January 2026, please contact Magdalen Chambers via clerks@magdalenchambers.co.uk or by telephone on 01392 285 200.