Legal Cost Specialists
Whether excessive legal costs are really a problem depends, in part, from what perspective you are considering matters. Defendants have little difficulty appreciating how problematic this issue is. However, claimant representatives have been far slower to join in the criticisms. How strange then that the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) should now join in […]
APIL complains about excessive costs of litigation Read More »
In previous posts I have been commenting on the proposed new claims process and the problems that arise as to what the relationship will be between the proposed new staged fixed fees under the new claims process and the existing fixed predictable costs (CPR 45.7-45.14). This problem is beginning to look more acute as time
Legal costs uncertainty continues for costs draftsmen and lawyers Read More »
I’ve recently come across the following video. The message itself is somewhat confused in that it starts by commenting on an attack that was launched on a defendant lawyer and then somehow uses this to support arguments concerning there being a “compensation culture”. Nevertheless, I present it here as it at least gives something of
Evidence of the compensation culture? Read More »
The constant refrain from claimant representatives whenever a paying party seeks to question the accuracy of a bill of costs is that one should not seek to go behind the signature to the bill unless there is a “genuine issue” as to whether the bill is accurate, and the case of Bailey v IBC Vehicles
Hourly Rates and the RPI Read More »
The Sunday Times followed on from last week’s attack on the costs paid out in clinical negligence cases (see previous blog) with a Top 10 list of the firms who were paid the most by the NHSLA in 2007/08: Irwin Mitchell £10.75m Leigh Day £4.87m Pannone LLP £4.83m McMillan Williams £3.01m Kingsley Napley £2.96m Gadsby
The law firms costing NHS millions Read More »
Although The Legal Costs Blog is unashamedly defendant biased, and always ready to have a go at claimant lawyers, even we were somewhat taken back by the attack launched on claimant clinical negligence lawyers in yesterday’s Sunday Times. One article was headed “Lawyers use NHS as £100m cash cow” and another “Lawyers get m0re than
In a previous post I commented on the fact that Cook on Costs 2009 is wrong when it says: "With the removal of the [CFA] Regulations [2000] from 1 November 2005 a CFA needs only to be in writing and signed…". As confirmed by Senior Costs Judge Master Hurst, in Findley v Jones and MIB
Signatures to CFAs Read More »
Many years ago, when I was studying for my law degree, I was told never to simply rely on the headnote of a law report, but to read the judgment in full. This was for two reasons. Firstly, it was often only by reading the full judgment would one properly understand the decision and the
Cole v News Group – The unread judgment Read More »
In a previous posting I reported some good news for personal injury lawyers and, in due course, law costs draftsmen and other costs professionals in the announcement that clinical negligence claims were predicted to increase. Similar good news comes in a survey conducted by legal recruiters ASA, carried out among law firms. Only 18% expected
Good news for costs draftsmen and costs consultants Read More »
The Ministry of Justice has issued a consultation paper, Civil Court Fees 2008, on proposed increases in certain court fees (closing date 4/3/09). The most eye watering increase is the fee for filing a request for a detailed assessment hearing by a legally aided party where no other party is ordered to pay the costs
Proposed court fee increases Read More »