Government accused of 'self interest' over Jackson

29/07/2010

Legal expenses insurers have accused the government of serving its own interests following its decision to discuss the implementation of the Jackson Review this autumn.

On Monday, parliamentary under-secretary of state for justice Jonathan Djanogly unveiled a consultation into the implementation of Lord Justice Jackson’s recommendations on conditional fee agreements laid out in the Review of Civil Litigation Costs.

The government also pledged to consider recommendations on fixed recoverable costs in the fast track, while the Legal Services Board will review its position on referral fees on the government’s behalf.

As part of the report, Lord Justice Jackson urged significant changes to the current arrangements for CFAs, including abolishing the recoverability of both success fees and after-the-event insurance premiums.

Tony Baker, director of the Legal Expenses Insurance Group, told Post the government was reducing access to justice: "The government is very concerned about its own costs, so it is putting an emphasis on issues like clinical negligence where the state pays.

“Legal expenses are there to help people to bring claims and many will find as a consequence, that their access to justice has been significantly reduced.”

Paul Asplin, DAS chief executive, added: "It is not good news for legal expenses insurers, or for the whole premise of access to justice.

“The main reason things like CFAs and ATE insurance exist is because legal aid is gone. By taking it away you are making it difficult, perhaps even impossible, for genuine claimants to take cases forward.”

However, Keoghs director of market affairs Steve Thomas, said it was likely that the recommendations, would lead to less frivolous claims bought into the court system.

He told Post: “Jackson wants claimants to have a stake in the litigation process, so a lawyer can recover costs against damages. It gives the claimant a financial stake in the litigation, making them consider their options carefully.”

Despite some reservations over the decision not to implement the measures as a single entity, the proposals were broadly welcomed by the defendant legal community.

Dan Cutts, president of the Forum of Insurance Lawyers, told Post: "Jackson set out his recommendations as an interlinked package. In my opinion, we need to keep the package together as Jackson set out.

“Previously, Lord Woolf’s report was meant to speed up litigation and make it more cost effective, however it was implemented only in part and then had CFAs overlaid, which has lead to the situation that Jackson has had to tackle in the first place.”

In the report, Lord Justice Jackson called the recommendations “interlocking” and urged that funding arrangements and cost rules be viewed in tandem admitting that “neither topic can be viewed in isolation”.

What next for the Jackson reforms? Click here to follow developments.

Original Article: Post