I’ve just come across a quote from last year from Karl Tonks, previous president of APIL, writing in the New Law Journal, that the reduction to fees for RTA claims in the Portal meant:
“Lawyers cannot reasonably be expected to run cases at a loss. But if the proposed fees are implemented, the only alternative will be to turn claimants away or take legal fees from a claimant’s damages, which flies in the face of the principles of justice.”
Flies in the face of the principles of justice?
Since when was it official APIL policy that charging clients, for example, solicitor/own client costs was contrary to the principles of justice? Did APIL members not charge their clients success fees pre-1st April 2000 (before recoverability was first introduced)? Do they bar solicitors from membership who undertake employment claims on a contingency basis on the grounds that they an affront to justice?
4 thoughts on “Charging clients an affront to justice”
Would that mean the indemnity principle is an affront to justice too?
The principle of justice, is to place the injured party in the same position they were before they were injured and suffered loss.
It is wholly perverse, we have a legal system now operated for the benefit of the Insurers, where the recoverable costs for daring to bring a claim, are fixed at a level where a solicitors HAS to charge his client just to break even on cases. The client will suffer loss he cannot hope to ever fully recover
ET claims with no costs recovery have long since been a perversion to justice, more so now with the recent changes regarding fees payable
I thought the level of general damages had been increased by 10% in all claims solely for the purpose of allowing claimants to pay some of their solicitors’ costs out of their damages.
Lots of claimant solicitors have always taken a shortfall in costs recovered from the other side from their damages and I do not recall the APIL campaign against this practice during the 1999-2013 halcyon years (for all PI lawyers).
That said despite my defendant leanings the new rules mean that there will be some claimants with legitimate claims who not are not going to be able to afford access to justice.
@ king costs
the 10% increase, as reported by many Claimant firms, has been, as expected, lost in the wash
as ever, and predicted by all who actually know the profession i.e. anyone but Grayling, clients are the losers to Insurers