I previously mentioned (see post) the forthcoming publication of a new book on the subject of legal costs. I suggested that this book might become the indispensable book on the subject. I have now had the great privilege of seeing a working draft of the book and I was wrong. There is no question as to whether this book will become the bible of the costs world – it will. I really can’t begin to explain how excited I am about this new book, and one doesn’t often see the word “excited” appear in the same paragraph as “legal costs”.

The book is being written by highly respected specialist costs counsel Dr Mark Friston.

More details to follow.

The New Law Journal recently reported on nearly 400 lawyers, legal professionals and friends taking part in the 10k Manchester Legal Sponsored Walk and raising a very respectable £20,000 for charity.  This works out at £50 per person taking part.

Let’s assume it takes an average of 2 hours to complete a 10km walk.  Let’s then allow another hour to get to and from the route of the walk.  Let’s also assume that each person taking part in the walk spent an hour going around their office signing up sponsors and then collecting the money.  In turn, an hour of their colleagues’ time would have been taken up being signed up and paying the sponsorship money.  Even if we assume that no training was done for the event, and if we ignore the time taken organising the event, approximately 5 hours of time would have been spent for each £50 raised.  That is an hourly rate of £10.  The current Guideline Hourly Rate for a Grade C fee earner in Central Manchester is £158.

Obviously, this type of charitable event is not simply about raising money (it’s also about raising awareness of important charities, building a sense of community, having a fun day out, etc) but it does make one wonder what a lawyer’s time is really worth.

I regret to have to announce the closure of the Supreme Court Costs Office (SCCO).  Actually, I’m exaggerating somewhat.  With the creation of the new Supreme Court, the SCCO has been renamed the Senior Courts Costs Office.  The updated CPR uses the shorter term "Costs Office".

The original name made it sound like a chicken dish and the new name makes it sound like a pensioner.  At least the acronym remains the same.  Any suggestions for a better name?

The Ministry of Justice has just announced (see letter) that claimant and defendant representatives have “reached broad agreement on the detail” of the new Claims Process for RTA personal injury claims with a value of between £1,000 and £10,000.

The Civil Justice Council has mediated an agreement on the fixed recoverable costs which will depend on which stage of the new process each case reaches. The agreed fixed costs are:

• £400 for Stage 1 (the claimant solicitor completes the claim notification form and sends it to the insurer who may admit/deny liability);

• £800 for Stage 2 (where liability is admitted, the claimant obtains a medical report and the process continues with offers and negotiation of a settlement to a strict timetable); and

• £250 paper hearing / £500 oral hearing for Stage 3 (where the parties cannot agree a settlement and the case goes to court).

The draft rules, practice directions and pre-action protocols have yet to be drafted (and the devil will be in the detail) but the implementation date being aimed for is April 2010.

Another chunk of work is likely to be lost to costs professionals as a result of these changes.

It seems that it’s not just defendant insurance companies that are unhappy about the legal costs that some lawyers charge, as this video shows:

(If you receive the Legal Costs Blog via email you made need to adjust your security settings to view the video.)

My sources in the legal costs world inform me of the forthcoming publication of a new book on the subject of legal costs. This news may not immediately set the pulse racing, especially when I tell you that I am not the author. However, this book promises to be different from the established titles on the market and is written by a highly regarded costs counsel. If this book is half as good as initial rumours suggest, it has every chance of knocking Cook on Costs from the top of the table as being the indispensable costs guide.

I’ll keep you updated.

The New Law Journal has just relaunched their website (and very nice it is too). They have a section devoted to legal costs (click link). Also available are some of the excellent costs articles from the costs team at Kings Chambers although the indexing could possibly do with a bit more work (why does the Kings Chambers article not appear in the Costs section?).

Hailsham Chambers have produced a podcast of their excellent Annual Costs Group Seminar. Highly recommended.

Annual Costs Group Seminars 2009 from Hailsham Chambers on Vimeo.

Lord Justice Jackson’s Preliminary Report on Civil Litigation Costs gives details of the meeting he had with the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) and the views that they expressed. This included: “APIL and FOIL have agreed a new code for handling high value personal injury cases. It applies to claims above £250,000. The code is currently being piloted (for 12 months from July 2008) and is working well. It is APIL’s experience that the claims handlers dealing with large claims are better and easier to deal with”.

It is somewhat odd if this is the view being expressed by claimant representatives and is one being accepted by Jackson LJ as being accurate. One senior claims manager at a major insurer that we have been in touch with said: “It will probably come as no surprise to you to learn that I’m not aware of any cases under the Multi-track Protocol that have settled yet. One of the main reasons for this is that there are so few cases that are being dealt with under the Protocol! It’s my belief (and this is a belief that I know is shared by others) that claimant firms are not keen to use the Protocol as it restricts their ability to build up costs – though the lawyers would probably say that it restricts their ability to look after their client’s best interests. On the few cases where the Protocol is being used, our experience is that the firms concerned do the absolute minimum to ensure observance of the terms, are not really operating within the spirit of the Protocol and are trying to make sure that it fails from the inside”.

I have previously been predicting, and indeed recommending, that the introduction of the new claims process for low value RTAs be abandoned or postponed pending the publication of Jackson LJ’s Costs Review. Further, disagreement over how the fixed fee structure would work and how the new scheme would operate with the existing predictable costs scheme seemed certain to derail the introduction of the new claims process.

It is therefore with no small sense of wonderment that we read in the Gazette that agreement "in principle" has been reached on the new process. Details of the scheme are currently under embargo pending approval by the Lord Chancellor. However, it is reported that the existing predictable costs scheme will remain in place for cases that fall out of the new process. Quite how this will work with "bent metal" claims remains to be seen. Further, it is suggested that the fees for claims that are in the new scheme will be "significantly less than the level of predictable costs".

The new process is due to commence in April 2010.