MissRibena - the point about the "miscellaneous petty outlays" figure is that it does not relate to a specific outlay, but is instead intended to cover general outlays not specifically billed to the client. There are two schools of thought:
1. It is just a way of getting a slightly higher fee; If a solicitor has the exact same "petty outlays" figure on every bill, he is certainly open to this accusation.
2. It is intended to allow for recoupment of extra or non-standard expense, in circumstances where the solicitor's cost recovery systems do not readily allow for itemising the expenses; for example, if there is a huge (say 400 pages) title in a sale, then copying and indexing these is perhaps above the norm; or if there is an auction and 20 different buyers want contracts faxed to their solicitors in advance; or if there is an estate being administered and a letter has to go to 20 people each time, rather than just to the executor. You get the idea.
I once worked in a U.S. law firm (in an extremely junior capacity). As a project to amuse myself, I set up the key-coding facility which came with the office photocopier (but which had not previously been used) so that photocopying jobs could be billed directly to the file. While it reeked of efficiency, it was probably not a good move, because at least some clients objected to seeing itemised copier outlays on their bill (they thought it petty - and perhaps they were right). However, if you have two almost identical transactions, one of which involves copying 50 pages, the other of which involves copying 500 pages, it does seem fair to be able to make some charge for the higher copy cost.
I tend to waver between the two schools of thought myself, so I am not going to come down in favour of either. I will simply say that there is merit in both viewpoints.