Report this comment to a moderator

MoJ backs Jackson's civil litigation reforms

CFAs were introduced by the government (not lawyers) to increase access to justice by inducing lawyers to fund cases and bear the risk of losing, so that it could make further cutbacks to legal aid. The success fee was the carrot on the stick to the proverbial donkey for lawyers. Now the government is scrapping legal aid in certain areas and getting rid of the incentive lawyers had to bear the risk under a CFA. If clients cannot get legal aid and lawyers see no point in CFA-ing a case as there's no reward for bearing the risk, and no success fee to make up for the cases which are lost,, how will a client bring their case? In clinical negligence cases, how will disbursements in cerebal palsy litigation be discharged throughout the life of the case when these can run into tens of thousands of pounds? One or other of the reforms would be damaging enough but the profession could find a way through - it is difficult to see how people without the means will now get access to justice. It is the government having its cake and eating it - it doesn't have to fund claims via legal aid anymore and when it loses them it doesn't have to pay success fees on top of base costs. It also knows that these proposals will reduce the numbe rof claims being brought generally in any event so it is win win on all fronts for the government.

18-Nov-2010

8:45 am