legal
DoesJackson matter?
In the Final Report of his Review of Civil Litigation Costs released in December 2009 Lord Jackson directed his proposed package of interlocking reforms at those areas of civil litigation where costs are disproportionate and impede access to justice.
In the April edition of ‘Insurance People’ motor claims consultant Roger Snook offered his spin on subsequent reactions to the report, and the chances of the Jackson recommendations being implemented. He suggested among other things that it all comes down to money, and posed the question, “Does anyone care about claimants or defendants - are they just the means to profit?”
Go to
www.insurancepeople.uk.com to read the Roger Snook article
Jackson’s Report. As a principally claimant personal injury lawyer I welcome this opportunity to respond and add my views to the debate.
R Andrew Welch
Andrew Welch, Head of Insurance and Partner and Deputy Chairman, Stephensons Solicitors LLP
In the April edition of Insurance People Roger Snook wrote an entertaining and thought provoking article assessing the reaction to Lord Justice
10 insurancepeople JUNE 2010
oger’s main point is that it’s ‘all about the money’ - it’s difficult to disagree with that ultimately from the perspective of the professionals involved on all sides of the fence. While Roger took some carefully aimed shots at rapacious claimant lawyers, we mustn’t forget that for insurers it’s ‘all about the money’ as well. Of course claimant lawyers will protest that a reduction in their fees is likely to lead to a reduction in access to justice and service to clients. However, the many forward thinking members of the claimant’s side of the profession have already, for years, been heavily investing in IT and other efficiency improving measures
which will allow them to provide an acceptable level of service in a reduced costs environment, if the fixed costs are pitched at the right level.
The real sufferers may be those claimants who have unusual or more complex cases that do not easily lend themselves to a fixed costs regime.
It’s also true that it is the major claimant personal injury firms who’ve been able to afford the efficiency investment that may be necessary, which could leave high street solicitors behind. The death of the high street personal injury practitioner may be an unintended consequence of
Jackson’s proposals, but nevertheless it is a very real risk. It’s quite surprising that Jackson seems to envisage a more traditional style of personal injury claims handling. For example requiring that claimants entering into a contingency fee agreement are separately advised by another solicitor, when the practical consequences of his proposals will be to reward the large and efficient whilst possibly marginalising the smaller firms. Roger suggests lawyers are approaching this on the basis that if they can’t get their fees from defendant’s insurers, they will charge their clients, for example by
“ There are many insurers and ”
brokers out there making a tidy sum from referral fees
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