To ban or not to ban?

Dominic Regan wades into the debate over referral fees

“I recommend that the payment of referral fees for personal injury claims be banned” (The final Jackson report, p 206). The payment of referral fees is “anti-competitive, a violation of privacy and a cartel against the consumer” (The Times, 27 June 2011).

During the 18 months between publication of these two statements a great deal happened and it appeared that referral fees would survive. It ain’t necessarily so.

I was told by a very senior civil servant in July 2010 that the new administration, while bent on drastic costs reform, was relaxed about referral fees. If solicitors wanted to spend their cash on buying work to do then let them.

Disappointment

May 2011 saw the publication of the Legal Services Board’s decision document on referral fees, referral arrangements and fee sharing. I was not alone in finding the report a disappointment. One of the largest insurers in the country

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

To ban or not to ban?

Dominic Regan wades into the debate over referral fees

During the 18 months between publication of these two statements a great deal happened and it appeared that referral fees would survive. It ain’t necessarily so.

Disappointment

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlotte Coleman & Qaisar Sheikh

Two promoted to partner in property litigation and education teams

Dorsey & Whitney LLP—Peter Knust

Cross-border finance and restructuring specialist joins as of counsel in London

Powell Gilbert—Callum Beamish-Lacey

IP firm promotes litigator to partnership

NEWS

Read All

NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation

NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’

Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies

NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins

Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid

NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements

The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation

Error message

To ban or not to ban?

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlotte Coleman & Qaisar Sheikh

Dorsey & Whitney LLP—Peter Knust

Powell Gilbert—Callum Beamish-Lacey