header-logo header-logo

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

Case conundrum?

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

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Firm welcomes partner with specialist expertise in family and art law

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Dual-qualified partner joins international private client team

NEWS
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

back-to-top-scroll