To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
9 thoughts on “Law Society's Model CFA agreement”
Entering of Judgement? therefore entitled to liability costs?
It means “In case I’ve forgotten something I don’t want to not get paid”
what it covers is the eventuality that the client receives an outcome which is expressed in something other than physical payment of damages. for example, what if, in a clinical negligence dispute, the client is offered and accepts some form of expensive private treatment , or decides to agree to an apology or a donation to a charity- I think Simons interpretation of the types of cliams it covers and the remedies available are far to restricted
It does rather beg the question, however, as to whether this alters significantly the risk to the solicitor of not being paid at all, and therefore if the trigger point of the CFA condition of “win” is much lower, shouldnt the success fee follow suit?
I have recently seen a cfa in a commercial matter which , amongst other definitions, allowed for the trigger of “win” on any outcome the claimant elected to accept
I suppose in reality it removes a “Win” from only being something the Court can award. I forget the name of the case and I can’t be bothered to look it up – but a CFA was drafted with the Win including an apology. The case was won at trial, but as the apology was an unavoidable part of the definition of the win and there was no apology (and the court can’t award one), there were no costs allowed.
So if the claimant instructs the solicitor that “it’s not about the money guv, I just want them to say sorry” then I suppose an apology and no money at least gives an arguable case that the claimant should be paying his own fees in the absence of an interparte order.
Seems like a good way to get an urgent chat with the SRA though.
judgment
(Editor’s Note: Not the Ben Pitts from BPW Legal Recruitment)
I saw a judgment where the claimant was suing to get a particular inscription on a grave stone which the defendant church had disallowed. The church then relented, and the claimant abandoned his claim for damages. The church then argued that there had been no “win” as the claimant’s CFA defined win as the recovery of a money remedy. I think the Law Soc saw a number of such cases, which is why it adjusted the model CFA in 2005.
Is that because solicitors were silly enough to use the CFAs for use in personal injury and clinical negligence cases only in grave stone disputes?
Only death claims
Where there’s a grave there is a claim