header-logo header-logo

Jackson: impact on experts

19 March 2014
Issue: 7599 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Survey reports reduction in workloads & experience of “bullying”

Expert witnesses have voiced their concerns over the impact of the Jackson reforms, including “bullying” solicitors and reduced fees.

In a survey by legal training company Bond Solon, experts said their fees were falling, with some solicitors trying to “haggle”. They also reported difficulty in setting an overall fee for work from the outset as this in itself often required a lot of research. 

One psychiatrist has experienced a 60% reduction in his workload, with about 30% of quotes now turned down by solicitors, often where the patient bringing the claim had a complex pre-existing medical history. He has noticed an increase in agencies asking him to see clients without prior access to their notes, which he refuses to do.

“In these cases the history needs to be recorded in detail and there are complex issues to discuss in relation to causation,” he says. 

“In most cases the size of the claim is too small to warrant the cost of my report but I am not in the position to cut corners as these are the cases most likely to be challenged. In contrast, clients with no pre-existing psych history can still be seen within acceptable budget. This obviously does raise issues about equitable access to justice/compensation.”

A cardiologist reports: “Solicitors are bullying and even threatening experts that cases will collapse and it is our fault if deadlines aren’t met.” He says he sat up until 3am with a fever to finish a report when he had flu after the instructing solicitor told him he would be held responsible for costs if he was late.

A consultant says: “Cases are poorly defended or argued because of time limits as well as cost limits, medical experts are moving out of my area back into private or NHS work because of draconian time limits and fears of litigation against them if not complied with.”

However, he added that he personally wrote to the judge to ask for more time in his case, after the instructing solicitor refused, and was given an extra six weeks to write his report.

NLJ will publish the second of its exclusive online litigation trends surveys in partnership with the London Solicitors Litigation Association in early April, a year after Jackson.

 

Issue: 7599 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll