News Litigation Law firms Addleshaws to share risk in oligarch showdown By The Lawyer 7 November 2010 00:00 17 December 2015 15:48 Sign in or register to continue reading. It's FREE Sign in Email Password Keep me logged in Forgot your password? Not registered? It's FREE! Register now Register with The Lawyer Pioneers 8 November 2010 at 14:01 He who dares wins, no? AG stand to gain a huge amount in the success fee (which I should imagine stands at 100%) if the case is successful and are covered for all their out of pocket expenses if they lose. They clearly think the case has decent prospects of success otherwise they wouldn’t have dreamed of taking it on under a CFA. The publicity and future work attracted by this move is an added bonus. Why are many lawyers so bloody conservative? In an age of austerity, it’s not those who sit on their hands who will come out of it smelling of roses. Reply Link AA 8 November 2010 at 15:21 Defeating the summary judgment application alone will have netted a pretty penny or two. Shoot for the pot and the yacht. Reply Link Colllings 8 November 2010 at 15:35 I wonder how the solicitors acting for the other side would feel, if they were asked to act on the same basis? Reply Link City Gent 8 November 2010 at 17:41 This is quite wrong. A success fee of this amount cannot fail to influence how the solicitors conduct the case and the advice they give. They have far too much of a vested interest in the outcome, and there must be a serious risk that they would be tempted to agree an inadequate settlement simply to ensure they got paid. No way could they afford to gamble a few mill on getting a better outcome at trial. CFA’s are an iniquity at the best of times, but it doesn’t matter too much when all that’s at stake is a couple of thousand quid for some bottom-feeding ambulance chaser. When the `success fee’ runs into millions it’s an affront to any concept of justice and professionalism. Reply Link Anonymous 8 November 2010 at 20:24 Mark Hastings the next Senior Partner at AG you heard it hear first? Reply Link Insider 8 November 2010 at 20:26 I agree here here. Time to get rid of the old guard Reply Link Anonymous 9 November 2010 at 11:46 But I wonder how much the insurance policy cost to protect themselves? They will take the hit on that expense if they do lose and I am guessing it is not a nominal sum. Reply Link Anonymous 9 November 2010 at 15:46 Whilst I fully advocate the use of CFA’s and alternative funding methods generally the knock on effect of this arrangement may not be so positive – particuarly given the findings of LJ Jackson in his report. As pointed out the CFA regime was established to provide Access to Justice. Clearly the above is going way beyond that and when this matter finally concludes and we see the massive figures that AG are seeking to recover by way of success fee and LEI premium then it will only add fuel to the arguments of those who seek to criticise the current system due to its cost on the public purse and ability to restrict freedom of speech. – Whilst clearly Mr Abramovich does have deep pockets not every defendant on the other side of a funding notice does have. Reply Link Pusillanimous Pedant 9 November 2010 at 16:55 Can’t anyone spell here? Or hear? Oh dear. Reply Link Kim Philby 11 November 2010 at 11:22 Battle of Hastings? Reply Link Observer 12 November 2010 at 13:01 A sad day indeed, and the real question is which other firms will benefit from the eventual litigation between Addleshaws and their client. I would happily put money on such litigaion ensuing. Would anyone like to take me on, on this ?? Reply Link Anonymous 10 December 2010 at 15:21 Bottom feeding ambulance chasers? Even Naomi Campbell funded her recent litigation in the UK by means of a CFA. Change is coming my friend and you need to wise up. Reply Link Name Email Cancel reply Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.