Check My Legal Fees News
Keep up to date with news and information from Check My Legal Fees
The Perils of Calling a Solicitor’s Bill “Fraudulent”
Accusing a solicitor of issuing a "fraudulent" bill may feel like a natural reaction if you are shocked by unexpected fees. Yet in English law, that single word carries a level of meaning—and legal risk—that many clients do not appreciate.
In CJ Jones LLP v John Sapsford [2026] EWHC 142 (KB), a decision in the High Court on Friday 30th January, the decision of Mr.Justice Griffiths underscored just how dangerous it can be to describe a solicitor's bill as "fraudulent" even in private emails to friends, family or regulators.
Below we explain why these allegations are hazardous, what the courts understand "fraudulent" to mean, and how you can raise concerns about costs without exposing yourself to allegations of defamation or malicious falsehood.
1. "Fraudulent" Means Dishonest—Not Just Excessive or Unfair
In everyday conversation, people sometimes use "fraudulent" loosely to mean "unfair", "inflated", or "outrageous". The law does not.In defamation law, "fraudulent" is treated as an allegation of deliberate dishonesty. It implies that the solicitor:
• knew they had no right to charge the fee,
• intended to deceive the client, and
• acted in a way that would amount to fraud if proved.
Courts repeatedly emphasise that dishonesty is a subjective state of mind. To accuse a professional of fraud is to allege the most serious form of misconduct. It is not a comment about quality or competence; it is an assertion of criminal‑level wrongdoing.
2. Such Allegations Are Almost Always Defamatory
Calling a solicitor's bill "fraudulent" will almost always satisfy the two limbs of the common‑law test for defamation:(a) Consensus requirement
The allegation plainly lowers the solicitor in the estimation of right‑thinking people. Fraud is universally regarded as incompatible with professional integrity.
(b) Threshold of seriousness
An accusation of dishonesty is among the most serious imputations possible. It would have a substantial adverse effect on how others treat the solicitor or the firm.
Even if the allegation is made in the heat of a dispute, or in an email chain about unrelated matters, the courts treat it as a serious attack on reputation.
3. Context Does Not Save You
Clients often assume that:• a private email,
• a message sent to a regulator, or
• a remark made "in frustration"
cannot be defamatory. That assumption is wrong.
Courts assess meaning from the perspective of the hypothetical reasonable reader, not the sender's intention. If the words, in context, convey an allegation of dishonesty, they are defamatory—even if:
• the email was informal,
• the audience was small,
• the sender thought they were "just venting", or
• the allegation was mixed in with other disputes.
In recent litigation, even a sardonic aside ("I don't think he's a fraudster…") was held to convey a defamatory imputation of dishonesty.
4. Fact vs Opinion: Why It Matters
A statement of fact is actionable unless the defendant proves it is true.A statement of opinion may be defensible if it is recognisable as comment and based on disclosed facts.
Accusing a solicitor of "fraudulent charges" is usually treated as a statement of fact, because:
• it asserts a specific act of dishonesty,
• it does not indicate the factual basis for the accusation, and
• it reads as a factual allegation rather than a value judgment.
Once classified as fact, the defendant must prove the allegation is substantially true—a very high bar.
5. The Malicious Falsehood Trap
Even if a defamatory claim fails, a solicitor may pursue malicious falsehood, which requires proof that:
• the statement was false,
• it was published maliciously (i.e., without honest belief), and
• it caused financial loss or was likely to do so.
Even if a defamatory claim fails, a solicitor may pursue malicious falsehood, which requires proof that:
• the statement was false,
• it was published maliciously (i.e., without honest belief), and
• it caused financial loss or was likely to do so.
Allegations of fraud, made without a proper basis, are fertile ground for such claims.
6. Safer Ways to Challenge a Bill
Clients are entitled to dispute fees. The law provides structured mechanisms for doing so, including:• Solicitors Act 1974 assessments,
• complaints to the Legal Ombudsman, and
• internal complaints procedures.
The key is to avoid imputing dishonesty unless there is a genuine evidential foundation. Safer language includes:
• "I dispute the basis of this charge."
• "I do not believe the firm is entitled to bill for this work."
• "I intend to challenge the invoice under the Solicitors Act."
• "I believe the charges are excessive/unreasonable."
These formulations express disagreement without alleging criminality.
7. Why This Matters for Clients
A defamation claim can expose a client to:• substantial damages,
• legal costs far exceeding the disputed bill,
• injunctions, and
• reputational consequences of their own.
Even if the solicitor ultimately loses, the litigation process is stressful, expensive, and time‑consuming.
Conclusion
Calling a solicitor's bill "fraudulent" is not a harmless expression of dissatisfaction. It is a legally loaded allegation of deliberate dishonesty, and courts treat it with the utmost seriousness. Clients who feel aggrieved by unexpected or excessive fees should challenge them through proper channels, using language that reflects dispute—not criminal accusation.If you have any concerns we can approach solicitors on your behalf. We have years of experience of formal challenges to solicitors' bills, and fight hard for our clients whilst being professional and courteous.
For further information email
About the author
Comment for this post has been locked by admin.
