Claimant law firms rethink models as CFA regime comes crashing down

  • Print
  • Comments (9)

Readers' comments (9)

  • Woolf was a clown who did not understand what the effects of his reforms would be.

    Later he tried to blame everyone but himself saying that the proportionality element was being ignored.

    And this man was supposedly one of our top judges!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • How does Andrew Parker propose to plug the hole in his own firm's profits created by a reduction in referrals of PI claims by his insurer clients?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Surely thus will affect the solicitors who defend these claims too?

    The changes go far beyond pi too

    It is all bad for lawyers

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • A better way would have been to cap success fees not abolish recovery of the same.
    I will be interested to see how the rules are implemented and whether the recovery of success fees is being removed in respect of PI or all course of litigation. CFA's and ATE policies are used in a far wider enviroment than PI and Clin Neg.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Same old story. Something is brought in with the best of intentions. A select few lawyers abuse the living heck out of it. Result? It's withdrawn. Hardly surprising.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It would be great for claimant lawyers if Jackson had proposed something to keep costs in proportion. But he doesn't.
    The key is ATE cover. This is related to defence costs, and has nothing to do with claimants' costs at all. We don't hear any willingness from the insurance industry to keep their costs under control. With professional negligence costs routinely exceeding £100k on each side, and with the average wage stuck around £25k pa., what does Jackson propose to enable the average bloke to sue his solicitor, surveyor, bank etc?
    Having read his report from cover to caover, I can say the answer is that he proposes nothing.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • What the government does not seem to understand is that the result of OWQCS is likely to be an explosion in the numbers of cases being taken to a full trial. This is because it will mean that there will be no reason for any claimant (however unlikely his claim is to succeed) not to go all the way to trial.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Independent Law costs Draftsmen are never consulted about proposed changes.It seems that only advisors to government or government employed costs Judges and costs assessors are involved.An independent could smell the coffee from the EU

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Remarkable how often changes in the rules always protect the larger establishments (banks, Local Authorities government departments and the like) who can afford the exorbitant and ever increasing cost of litigation.
    As an ordinary tax payer with an average salary I am forced to conclude that the law is about what you can afford rather than it is about truth and justice.
    I want to sue a liquidator and a major bank who have been clearly guilty of gross negligence. Perhaps the good people that make the laws should look hard at the effect on ordinary people who for the most part can no longer afford justice.
    The removal of legal aid and now this reasonably sums up our so called leaders respect for justice and the people they (supposedly) serve.
    If a solicitor is prepared to risk his money to effectively win a case then he damn well deserves to be well rewarded.
    Perhaps Jackson would like to show us all how I fund my case without the benefit of legal aid or solicitors who are prepared to take up the cudgel on behalf of those unable to afford taking on the "big boys" justice is fast becoming a corporate club.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (9)