The Jackson reforms to Civil Litigation funding. NO MORE NO WIN NO FEE!!

[Paul.]

Re: The Jackson reforms to Civil Litigation funding. NO MORE NO WIN NO FEE!!

from what ive seen of the other law firms out there that do CCA Law on CFAs they are not going to accept cases unless the client pays money on account it seems. This will be a disaster

We may look at ways where the clients can pay the success fee over say 12 months, but the fact remains under these reforms, either we agree to work for free for nothing, no benefit at all, or we charge the success fee to the clients.

of course the alternative doesnt bear thinking about, being we just charge flat rates with no CFAs at all.

[diddlydee]

Re: The Jackson reforms to Civil Litigation funding. NO MORE NO WIN NO FEE!!

Would it not be possible to restructure the basic fee and do away with the success fee, or am I being naive?

[Paul.]

Re: The Jackson reforms to Civil Litigation funding. NO MORE NO WIN NO FEE!!

Would it not be possible to restructure the basic fee and do away with the success fee, or am I being naive?

lol

Erm, so i work for nothing with no incentive of doing so????

Thats the point.

A standard lawyer will say, i want £1k on account before i look at your papers. This ensures he gets paid no matter what.

A CFA means we get nothing nill nada nowt until the end of the case, which take harrison for example, was 3 years, so the success fee is the bonus for us working under such conditions.

the basic fees are set against guideline rates so its not like we can charge the opponent more if we win, we are stuck

Plus what is often forgotten, is that we need to be able to keep running while the case progresses, the successfees provide the additional income in real terms to allow us to pay our overheads while we wait for the next case to succeed, normal law firms have regular income no matter what, we dont.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: The Jackson reforms to Civil Litigation funding. NO MORE NO WIN NO FEE!!

oh well we'll just divert all donations from here to keep you afloat for ermmm, say 10 mins mate - every little helps

[diddlydee]

Re: The Jackson reforms to Civil Litigation funding. NO MORE NO WIN NO FEE!!

lol

the basic fees are set against guideline rates so its not like we can charge the opponent more if we win, we are stuck

This bit answers my question! I wondered whether the basic fee was fixed or could be adjusted to provide you with the incentive you needed. Hmmmmm, plan B required; not sure what that is!

[oscar]

Re: The Jackson reforms to Civil Litigation funding. NO MORE NO WIN NO FEE!!

Erm, so i work for nothing with no incentive of doing so????

Isnt that what Niddy expects of all his "staff"

(sorry, been on the Stella )

[diddlydee]

Re: The Jackson reforms to Civil Litigation funding. NO MORE NO WIN NO FEE!!

Cheeky oscar! This work is our "charity" work - Paul needs to eat!

[Paul.]

Re: The Jackson reforms to Civil Litigation funding. NO MORE NO WIN NO FEE!!

we do set our fees higher than guidelines though,

Our costs Counsel advise that on the basis the area of law is complex we have arguments to exceed the guidelines. However, we are only £10 above guidelines lol

and often judges will say work could have been done by a Grade D fee earner so reduce hourly rate to grade D ( even though we dont have a fookin grade D fee earner on the firm)

The correct approach then would be for us to go to the client and say

We have recovered £5000 from the opponent, your bill was £8000 so please pay the difference which we are fully entitled to do, but we do not, so we are gonna get shafted here twice, cos the courts always lower your bill and clients will not be able to pay the difference let alone success fee.

[diddlydee]

Re: The Jackson reforms to Civil Litigation funding. NO MORE NO WIN NO FEE!!

Presumably, the fees incurred could well outweigh the original debt being disputed. Looks like this new bill will shaft more than just solicitors - Mr Average won't have a cat in hells chance of taking on the big boys.

Bastard government. We need to fight. Letter template please, together with a name/address to lobby........

[Paul.]

Re: The Jackson reforms to Civil Litigation funding. NO MORE NO WIN NO FEE!!

its always a contentious point, lawyers getting paid for the work they do, but you dont get your car serviced any not expect to pay, you dont get your shopping and expect to pay nowt, you dont get a new boiler from british gas without expecting to pay so why should it be that people expect us to work for nothing, pay their legal fees in the bargain as well,

it really grabs my balls this does, we dont take money off clients where we can recover the bill from the opponents, we go out of our way to bend over backwards and help people out of the shit, and yet these lovely people in Parliament seem to think its perfectly ok to kick us in the ass even more than they already do

[Paul.]

Re: The Jackson reforms to Civil Litigation funding. NO MORE NO WIN NO FEE!!

Presumably, the fees incurred could well outweigh the original debt being disputed. Looks like this new bill will shaft more than just solicitors - Mr Average won't have a cat in hells chance of taking on the big boys.

Bastard government. We need to fight. Letter template please, together with a name/address to lobby........

EXACTLY

Banks have total resources to throw the best of the best at these cases. The little guys best hope is a CFA which is now being taken away in reality.


This was what i wrote to Mr Huhne originally, which made him take notice and ask me to meet him

Dear Mr Huhne,

Your are my local MP and i would ask you to consider an issue which is of grave concern to me and which concerns the Jackson reforms on Conditional Fee Agreements. I live at ..................................


I work for a firm of solicitors who offer support to people in debt through no fault of their own and who's rights have been infringed by creditors who step outside of the law, namely but not limited to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended). As i say the people who we represent are in financial difficulty, they cannot obtain legal aid due to their income in most cases and therefore are left with no legal help unless they pay large legal fees. Our firms philosophy is to offer representation to people on a no win no fee basis. This provides them with the legal help they are entitled to, without the costs burden of having to pay us as we progress the case, with our bill becoming payable at the end of the case if and only if we win for them.

I can give you a case example here, and refer you to the recent landmark ruling in Harrison vs Link Financial Limited where we obtained justice for Mr Harrison, his case is found here http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup...method=boolean

We represented Mr Harrison on a no win no fee agreement and it should be noted that Mr Harrison would not have been able to take this case to the Court and obtain justice if he had not been placed on a CFA. This case took over two years worth of work to get to trial and large amounts of time involved.

I should also say Mr Harrisons case was one of the few where we represented him as Claimant, most people who come to us are facing losing their homes and cannot afford legal help!!! should income bar you from defending yourself? i say no it should not.

We have represented many many families who have been unfairly treated and whom could not have afforded our help unless we offered the Conditional fee agreement.I attach copies of some of the Court rulings we have had against the banks and debt purchase industry.I could present hundreds of these judgments to you showing that we are using the law as parliament intended to protect the consumers.

I am concerned to note that the Jackson reforms looks to do away with recoverability of the success fee under a CFA. Now let me make one point on the success fee. When we offer no win no fee, we take a risk that we may lose, so we are entitled to charge a success fee to reflect that risk, plus under a CFA we do not get paid until the end of the case. So the success fee reflects the risks we take helping those who need it.

I understand the Jackson reforms target Claimant cases, such as Personal Injury cases, and i quote from a press release which says

CFA success fees will cease to be recoverable from an opponent and, in certain cases like personal injury, will be subject to a maximum percentage of damages, which will probably be set at 25 per cent. Similarly, ATE insurance premiums will not be recoverable from an opponent, apart from in certain clinical negligence actions, where premiums relating to insurance taken out to cover the costs of instructing an expert will remain recoverable. The irrecoverability provisions will not apply to CFAs entered into or ATE policies taken out before the legislation comes into force.


It seems unfair that someone who is sued due to a debt, employs the statutory protections of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to defend themselves and manages to win his case, then only to face having to pay a success fee to us because they cannot recover it from the opponent. That to me is not justice at all.If we cannot use the CFA to assist people with their cases then they will be left without any help whatsoever and will be left vulnerable. I have a number of horror stories where peoples rights have been brushed aside and it seems wrong, if we are no longer able to offer a CFA and there is no legal aid available it means that you will have a David vs Goliath situation with Banks having huge legal teams and funding to pay, vs the man on the street on his own faced with a daunting court battle to protect his home!!!.

lets not forget the banks who are the claimants in these cases have huge resources, i have numerous customers who would have lost their homes if this small firm had not took their cases on no win no fee and recovered the costs of defending the claims from the banks. If the Jackson reforms go through unchallenged, then while i agree that PI cases are open to abuse and where someone recovers large damages then they should pay for their legal representation i must also say that the people we represent are fighting for their very existence and their homes, when they win they dont recover anything at all, they get no damages, they save their homes but do not profit. It is these people who would be hurt by the reforms in the Jackson report.


I would be grateful if you could put my concerns to parliament when this bill is being debated as i feel these are legitimate points.




With Kind Regards

Paul

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: The Jackson reforms to Civil Litigation funding. NO MORE NO WIN NO FEE!!

^^^ Good letter mate but what can we do, really?

If you can call the shots then we can follow the process - am sure you'll get an awful lot of support

[diddlydee]

Re: The Jackson reforms to Civil Litigation funding. NO MORE NO WIN NO FEE!!

Nids, would you be able to create a letter for us, based on Pauls? Presumably we lobby Jonathan Djanolgy MP? Perhaps a PM to ALL members of this site would get a few supporters......

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: The Jackson reforms to Civil Litigation funding. NO MORE NO WIN NO FEE!!

Nids, would you be able to create a letter for us, based on Pauls? Presumably we lobby Jonathan Djanolgy MP? Perhaps a PM to ALL members of this site would get a few supporters......

Ok, fine I will spam all 1000+ registered users with an email - only one though, if Paul can tell us what to put in it etc in order to get things moving in the right direction....

I'll then spam everyone with a direct link to a campaign that we'll also host on the new look AAD - if you want...?

[PlanB]

Re: The Jackson reforms to Civil Litigation funding. NO MORE NO WIN NO FEE!!

Hmmmmm, plan B required; not sure what that is!

Here I am

Paul, what about After The Event insurance?