For those of you with nothing better to do on New Year’s Eve than read the Legal Costs Blog (this post was written in advance and published automatically) spare a thought for the Master of the Rolls who was due to receive an advance copy of Lord Justice Jackson’s final report on his Review of Civil Litigation Costs by today (due to be published on 14 January 2010). If it’s anything like his Preliminary Report the Master of the Rolls will have some serious reading to do.
Monthly Archives: December 2009
Lawyers growing rich on NHS negligence
The lobbying in advance of Lord Justice Jackson’s final report on his Review of Civil Litigation Costs continued to the last moment with The Times (see link) reporting on excessive legal costs in clinical negligence matters. No doubt all true, but it didn’t seem to add much to a similar article from The Times headed “Lawyers get more than victims in NHS compensation scandal” (see link) published back in March 2009.
Happy Christmas
The Legal Costs Blog wishes readers a Happy Christmas and Defendants a prosperous New Year.
Click image to enlarge:
Solicitors’ bills and VAT
Those involved in the world of legal costs will be dreading VAT reverting to 17.5% in 2010 and the difficulties this will cause in relation to bill drafting.
On the subject of VAT, another video from Colin Berry, this time about solicitors’ bills and VAT:
(If you receive the Legal Costs Blog via email you made need to adjust your security settings to view the video.)
I’m no expert on VAT regulations but I suspect the answer may lie in the fact that the bill is headed “Interim Account”.
I again hasten to add that the views expressed by Mr Berry are his own and not those of the Legal Costs Blog or anyone associated with it.
Costs Judge Vacancies
Anyone looking for a new job for next year might want to consider one of two posts being advertised for costs judges in the Senior Courts Costs Office (salary £102,921 plus £4,000 London allowance). You’ll have to be quick though as the closing date is 7 January 2010.
Regulation 4(2)(c) lives on
Raising Legal Fees
I wouldn’t usually post something giving tips on how lawyers can increase the legal costs they can recover but I thought I would make an exception in this case.
(If you receive the Legal Costs Blog via email you made need to adjust your security settings to view the video.)
Is it just me or was this all blindingly obvious?
I did like the music at the beginning and end though.
Pro bono legal costs work
I recently received a telephone message asking if my firm did pro bono work. (The answer is “no”, by the way.) But this did cause me to pause for thought as it coincided with a report in the Law Society Gazette that: “The value of pro bono work done annually by lawyers has soared to more than £400m. … That figure does not include the contribution made by in-house solicitors or other legal professionals such as barristers or legal executives”.
You wouldn’t telephone a plumber and ask if he did pro bono plumbing. I doubt you would do this regardless of how poor you were or how bad the leak was. So why are lawyers viewed differently? Why are some lawyers prepared to give so much of their time for free? Undoubtedly, a lot of pro bono work is undertaken by lawyers working for Magic Circle firms or leading barristers who earn more money than they can spend and feel the need to “give something back”. However, this is not the whole answer and there are clearly those on far more modest incomes who also give their time freely. Well done you.
There are probably a number of legal aid lawyers out there who feel they would be better off switching entirely to pro bono work. The pay would be about the same but there would be far less forms to complete.
If there are any costs draftsmen out there who do pro bono work, let us know.
A working alternative to recoverable success fees?
As the tension mounts as to what might be going through the mind of Lord Justice Jackson as he prepares his final report on his civil costs review, might he be influenced by the litigation landscape north of the boarder? The recently published Report of the Scottish Civil Courts Review states that the majority of damages claims in Scotland are pursued on the basis of "speculative fee arrangements" (no win, no fee agreements). This is despite the fact that: "Unlike in England and Wales, success fees and ‘after the event’ insurance premiums are not recoverable and will have to be paid by a successful [claimant] from the damages recovered, unless they are waived or absorbed by the [claimant’s] solicitor". Jackson LJ’s Preliminary Report raises a number of concerns about the English system of recoverable success fees and ATE premiums. If non-recovery seems to work in Scotland, why not here?
And while Jackson LJ may be looking north of the boarder, they are looking back. The Scottish report concludes: "We have given careful consideration to the use made of speculative fee arrangements in this country and the experience of conditional fee agreements in England and Wales. We consider that it would be premature to recommend any changes to speculative fee agreements as they are presently constituted in Scotland. The civil costs review in England and Wales chaired by Lord Justice Jackson should be monitored for its research findings and its conclusions"
Deep-fried Mars Bar anyone?
The art of good law costs drafting
The Law Gazette has reported the case of a Norfolk solicitor who charged clients based on the weight of their files, “by weighing the files in his hand”, and was struck off after a hearing before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. You mean there’s another way to cost a file?