A solicitor who charged out his paralegals at £400 an hour has been fined £30,000 for misconduct.

Andrew Good ran a Hull firm, Rapid Response, which specialised in clinical negligence cases. When a company which assessed the firm's bills for the NHS described them as "beyond obscene" and refused to settle, the SRA was moved to investigate. It found that Good's firm, in which he owned a 50% stake, frequently submitted  "excessive and often grossly excessive" bills.

In one case Rapid Response claimed £37,298.00 with a 100% success fee against a damages award of £3,000. The bill was reduced to £3,330.35 after an assessment, with the judge commenting that the invoice was “with the greatest of respect, shall we say ambitious". In another case the firm claimed costs of £196,365.80 with a 100% success fee where the awarded damages amounted to the princely sum of £3,000. In a case with a similar ratio, which a judge described as “preposterous”, the firm's own counsel admitted in an attendance note that he “found it hard to disagree with the DDJ’s finding...”. The brief wrote a “Lessons to be learned” section advising Rapid Response, “do not serve wholly unrealistic bills, even under cover of a letter headed ‘without prejudice’”. It didn't listen. In 151 cited cases, the firm recovered less than £1.5 million from £6.5 million claimed in costs.

Court guidelines for Hull specified that solicitors with over eight years' experience should charge a maximum rate of £201 an hour. But the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found that Rapid Response's work was frequently carried out by legal executives and paralegals charged out at double the price. In evidence, Good said he set the rate at £400 on the basis of online research and "some law articles online". The tribunal noted that Good "was unable to point to any specific articles and had not retained any of the research conducted". Good also argued that the tribunal could not be sure that any overcharging could amount to misconduct,

While the tribunal found that he lacked integrity, it said Good had not been dishonest. His conduct was motivated by his desire for the practice to be profitable, it said, and "his assessment of the self-importance of his own opinion over and above that of no fewer than six different costs Judges". Good was ordered, along with two colleagues who were prosecuted alongside him, to also pay a proportion of the SRA's £300,000 costs. Its bill will be subject to a detailed assessment, which Good has got to be praying is as swingeing as the ones imposed on his "ambitious" invoices.