“ Does anyone care about

So, given that presumption, what can we expect?

“...... major legislative change to implement the reforms will not just turn back the clock, but will undoubtedly lead to years of satellite litigation over their

interpretation” - Andrew Tucker

(The Lawyer, January 2010)

Although we may not share the views of Irwin Mitchell in many things, Andrew Tucker is probably right in his rather pessimistic view that any attempt to change the system that will reduce lawyers’ incomes will be fought tooth and nail.

Remember this is all about

money, and for any business a reduction in income is very painful. So, we can reasonably expect that even if the changes are implemented in the teeth of the claimant lawyers, they are still then going to employ every means at their disposal to replace the missing income. Would they succeed? I suspect that to a large extent they would. We are dealing with highly intelligent people who would be hit in their pockets, and we must expect them to do what we would all do, for example increasing their charging rates/time spent, disbursements etc.

However, an aspect of Jackson that seems to have stimulated a deal of comment in legal circles is that the lawyers who would be best placed are those who have already gained critical mass (sorry about the pun). Smaller practitioners will be at some disadvantage, at least until they can develop a means of

acquiring cases that is not dependent on referral fees. One hopes that they will succeed since should they not, an unintended consequence of Jackson could be the

disappearance of the High Street solicitor and the increased success of the major legal firms, thus reducing even further the possibility of personal contact between the claimant and his lawyer (or should I say fee earner?).

Whilst speaking of unintended consequences, we need to be

aware (whilst welcoming what in my view is Lord Jackson’s admirably neutral assessment of the costs situation and his sensible suggestions for reform) that much may happen in the translation into the various pieces of legislation that may be necessary. Consider the sad decline in parliamentary draftsmanship over the past ten or so years and you will see the perils.

Finally, there may be a tendency to wait and see what the effect of the MoJ Reforms

claimants or defendants – are they just the means to profit?

”

may be before rushing in. These changes were also welcomed by the insurance industry and defendant lawyers:

“We didn’t exactly get what we wanted out of the MoJ reforms but we did get the most radical reform in this area for more than a

decade...” Justin Jacobs, ABI

“The new claims process should - if implemented effectively and operated efficiently by stakeholders - streamline the handling of these claims and see an end to marginal liability arguments and to counter productive ‘haggling’ on quantum or contributory negligence” BLM

The MoJ reforms which are due to be implemented on 6 April are also suggested to produce substantial savings. Possibly they will, if they work and have the effect forecast. However, am I alone in anticipating that a competent claimant lawyer will be able to bounce a case out of the system (to his profit) and at the same time be able to show it is the fault of the insurer? In any event, taking a leaf from Andrew Tucker’s book, I suspect that we are due a further round of satellite litigation.

Which all sounds rather depressing. Does anyone care about the claimant or the defendant, or are they just the means to profit? Do we really wish to answer this?

APRIL 2010 insurancepeople 27 Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36