header-logo header-logo

Case conundrum?

17 November 2011
Issue: 7490 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

APIL warns of the “ominous formula” of legal reforms

Non-lawyers at claims management firms could be left in charge of running complex personal injury cases in future as a result of government reforms, legal campaigners have claimed.

The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) issued a dire warning this week about the future for victims of negligence as a result of the Legal Aid Bill and the ban on referral fees in personal injury cases.

“Proposed reforms to the way people can fund legal cases plus a ban on referral fees is an ominous formula which could lead to marketing men at claims management companies actually running personal injury cases,” says APIL president, David Bott.

“If proposals going through Parliament come into force, new options for funding legal cases will be available and will allow inexperienced and unqualified people to start running cases until the point they go to court. Claims management companies are very good at advertising legal services, but they’re not lawyers. These businesses won’t be making any money from referral fees after they are banned, so will need to do something else to survive.

“Changes in the current Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill will open the door for them to start handling cases themselves.”

APIL called for personal injury to be made a “reserved activity”—only open to appropriately qualified legal professionals—in its response to the Legal Services Board consultation, “Enhancing consumer protection”, which closed for comments at the beginning of November.

Bott says: “A claims management company would need to settle a case to recover the costs and stay in business.

“The case would have to be taken over by a solicitor when it gets as far as court, so they will want to settle before it gets that far. This could mean cases are under-settled and injured people don’t receive all the damages they need for their future care.”

Issue: 7490 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll