On a recent post were a number of comments from readers of the Legal Costs Blog. One said that they preferred the Blog when it is “informative”. Another responded by saying they preferred the Blog when it is “tongue in cheek and amusing”.
Frankly, I resent the suggestion that anything I write on the Blog is intended to be “informative”.
There are a growing number who subscribe directly to the Blog and receive this by email. This gives me a chance to take a rough snapshot of the kind of readers it has.
A number of email addresses are private (eg @gmail or @hotmail) and so gave no clue.
Of the balance, the readers broke down on the following lines:
17.5% – claimant solicitors
20% – costs draftsmen
42.5% – defendant solicitors
5% – local or central government legal departments.
2.5% – journalists
7.5% – insurers
5% – self-insured bodies
Obviously, this is likely to be somewhat misleading. A number who appear as defendant solicitors, for example, based on their email addresses may actually be in-house law costs draftsmen. Further I suspect a slightly higher proportion of claimant representatives sneak a cheeky peak at the Blog but aren’t prepared to subscribe.
I also know that there are a number of specialist costs counsel and costs judges who read this but don’t subscribe to receive it automatically. They are probably the ones who post the angry rants anonymously in the comments section.