The Jackson report: PI claimant lawyers rue detrimental effect on access to justice

  • Print
  • Comments (4)

Readers' comments (4)

  • That is very true. But You can get always get a full medical coverage at the lowest price from http://bit.ly/68ShhE if you do your home work you can
    find the best plan.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The argument that claimant firms will have to abandon their less-promising cases is wholly disingenuous; At no point in the real world does a claimant lawyer take on a less-than-50%-chance case on a CFA, although he may well justify his 100% success fee on that basis.
    As for racking up costs to force early settlement, Mr Delaney, the words 'pot' 'kettle' and 'black' spring instantly to mind.
    The success rates of CFA-funded cases cited in Jackson's report show that CFAs were only ever about boosting profitability and nothing to do with access to justice.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This in reality is an attack on the whole Claimant market. No mention is made about the effect this will have on Claims Farmers. Claimant firms will not be able to pay silly money for cases that have an unrealistic chance of success. Once the Claims farmers have gone, perhaps there will be a degree of reality in only claims with true merit will be brought.
    However, re ATE's I seem to recall that the success fee was brought in as a political cusion for the blow that the loss Civil Legal Aid caused. One should remember that CFA's were brought in when Legal Aid was lost, saving the Government huge sums and placing the burden for funding cases squarely on the shoulders of Claimant Solicotrs. Accept it or not, but Claimant solicitors perform a public service in this respect.
    In Summary- Re Reform-Nothings going to happen, it never does. Only half baked solutions are found making PI procedures an even bigger mess. First we had Order 17r11 to argue about, then CFA's now this. What a silly silly mess.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It's ironic that just as the whole CFA system was finally achieving some equilibrium, along comes the Jackson Report and throws the whole thing out and replaces it with a new model.
    My prediction is that these proposals (if implemented) will herald a rash of poorly represented claimants, who will decide to take their chances and no have insurance backing.
    The successful defendant insurers will then be left with a host of unenforceable costs awards.
    We're back to the days of legal aid then?

    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 (4)