M Bose: Botham and Imran count legal costs (18 Oct 1997)

Saturday 18 October 1997

Botham and Imran count legal costs

Mihir Bose

IAN BOTHAM and Imran Khan do not have much in common but this weekend they are in an identical situation: both are in dispute with their lawyers over fees.

The money the lawyers are demanding from the two cricketers relate to the unsuccessful libel action brought by Botham against Imran last year.

Botham's former solicitors, Swepstone Walsh, are claiming £105,200.57 in unpaid fees. Botham, in a statement issued through his new lawyers, Naynesh Desai, says he is surprised and hurt by what he claims is an unjustified course of action. He says he has paid other substantial amounts, and adds he has been given professional advice not to pay any more unless he receives a detailed, itemised bill.

I understand a similar but smaller bill has been presented by Swepstone to Allan Lamb who had also unsuccessfully sued Imran for libel. After much negotiations, some of them quite heated, Lamb's lawyer, also Naynesh Desai, managed to reduce the bill to an amount acceptable to him .

News of Lamb's settlement prompted Botham to seek one and for much of the summer it has been the subject of many discussions between Botham and his advisers, and Alan Herd, of Swepstone Walsh, and some of his colleagues.

Swepstone initially demanded more than £150,000, some of which was paid by Botham. Botham, however, was unhappy that Swepstone had not given him a sufficiently detailed itemised bill showing how they arrived at this figure.

A Law Society spokeswomen said: "As a general rule a bill of costs must contain sufficient particulars to enable the client to judge the fairness of the charges."

Various compromise figures were mentioned before Swepstone launched the writ. The legal action means that one of the most celebrated sportsman-lawyer relationships is now over. For nearly two decades Herd has been the lawyer constantly at Botham's side. So much so that Herd has become a figure in cricketing circles and has acquired a profile in his own right.

He has been a frequent speaker at cricket dinners, regaling audiences with tales of being Botham's lawyer, interspersed with attempts at impersonating Joel Garner's Bajan accent and recounting the antics of Botham, Viv Richards and Garner at Somerset.

When England toured India in the winter of 1981, some of the players, led by Geoffrey Boycott and Graham Gooch, were plotting a rebel tour of the then ostracised South Africa. Herd was summoned by Botham to Bangalore, where England were playing in the second Test, and he arrived with the player's then agent, Reg Hayter.

Despite the presence of the English press corps, Hayter and Herd kept the nature of their mission, to decide whether Botham should go on the rebel tour, secret. Botham decided not to go but no word leaked out of the rebel tour until England had returned home.

In recent years Herd has had his problems. His original firm, Vallance Lickfolds, ran into financial problems and he, along with his former partners, were rescued early last year by Swepstone Walsh.

Neither Herd nor Botham were available for comment. Botham has severed his ties with Herd and is continuing his appeal against Imran's libel verdict. He will be represented by Desai and backed by a leading firm of libel lawyers.

The story of Imran and his lawyer, Howard Cohen, a partner in a Leeds-based firm, is, if anything, more serious. More than a week ago one of Imran's close advisers in Bradford intimated to Cohen that a formal complaint to the Law Society was planned. This is now being done.

A source close to Imran said: "Substantial sums have been paid which have included all counsel brief fees and refreshers, and substantial payments have also been made to Mr Cohen in respect of his own fees. This is in spite of the fact that he has not given an itemised bill despite repeated requests. There is a bill outstanding of some £20,000 plus mark-ups. We have never agreed to the mark-ups but would settle the bill if it was verified and itemised. We have no intention of using Cohen for the appeal."

Cohen said: "Something has happened this morning that makes the situation very delicate. I have to adopt the position of no comment. I could get into a lot of trouble otherwise."

Cohen refused to comment on whether he was planning to issue a writ against Imran for fees but he insisted he was still acting for Imran on the appeal filed by Botham. He hinted, however, that he might not be acting for him much longer, saying: "I cannot say any more, I am bound by professional privilege." I understand there is a High Court hearing on Nov 12 which may reveal more.

Source :: Electronic Telegraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk)