Are No Win No Fee Solicitors Costing the Tax-Payer Money?
Going to court is, without doubt, a very expensive process. Costs can be so high that many are discouraged from pursuing litigation for fear of losing significant sums of money. The 'no win no fee' method of launching legal proceeding was introduced as a way of giving more people access to justice. In 1999, Lord Irvine of Lairg's Access to Justice Act widened the net even further, extending the 'no-win no-fee' method to include personal injuries at work, effectively replacing legal aid in these situations.
Bringing costs under control
Lord Justice Jackson has outlined plans to "bring the costs of litigation under control and promote access to justice." His concerns seem to stem from the notion that the 'no win no fee' system is costing the taxpayer too much money in payouts. In his 557-page report, he details schemes to introduce US-style contingency fees, where lawyers act in return for a share of the damages. These shares would be fixed in accident claims of up to 25, 000 pounds. These proposed reforms would drastically reduce the 140 million pounds that is paid out in legal costs by the NHS. In theory, the proposals would also reduce claims for accident, privacy and libel claims and increase the number of accident claim victims recovering more damages.
One of the most contentious parts of the plans surrounds Jackson's views on management and other intermediaries, which he wants to ban outright. More specifically, he wants to ban the practice of intermediaries referring cases to lawyers in personal injury claims. While the proposals have divided the legal profession, Nicholas Jervis, managing director of compensation claims specialists, 1stClaims, is able to see both sides of the coin. "There can be no question that the 'no win no fee' system offers many benefits in connecting consumers and lawyers through referral. One of the main benefits is the huge reduction in cost, allowing those who would not ordinarily be able to pursue litigation the chance to do so. In long and legally complex cases, this is of paramount benefit to the litigator," he says.
Changing the thinking on 'no win no fee'
In relation to Jackson's scheme to significantly reduce the amount of money available for legal advice, he says: "Many personal injury cases are referred to lawyers on the grounds of price, rather than service excellence," he explains. "However, if you cut out completely claims companies, many victims of accidents would fail to find the help they need. This is all about balance, each party should be reasonably remunerated for their input. 'No win no fee' certainly has its place in the legal profession and it always has the best interests of the consumer at heart."
Jervis' view seems to be that Jackson's proposals are bringing the responsibility of litigation back to the lawyers and their clients, asking them to make sensible considerations before launching any form of litigation. With these ground-rules established, the 'no win no fee' will continue to offer access to justice for those who, otherwise, might not be able to stand the financial strain.
About the Author:
We deal in a range of claims, including personal injury claims and compensation. Please visit http://www.1stclaims.co.uk for further information.
Article Marketing
4 people like this article
