Society's "single campaign" criticised
Lord Justice Jackson has criticised the Law Society for its decision to run a “single campaign” against his proposals for the reform of the costs of civil litigation, and proposed changes to legal aid, which are both outlined in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill.
Speaking in Cambridge this week, Jackson LJ said the society had lumped the two together as if they were a “composite package”.
He added that the campaign to retain the present scope of legal aid clearly rested on public interest grounds, even if the campaign ultimately fails because other public interests are deemed to be greater.
“However, the campaign against the Jackson proposals is not based upon the public interest at all…this campaign is in my view inimical to the public interest—although it is very much in the interests of those groups who are making disproportionate profits out of the current arrangements.
“Indeed, to their credit, many lawyers publicly (and even more lawyers privately) recognise that the present rules re conditional fee agreements and after the event insurance are deeply flawed and require reform along the lines I propose.”
Des Hudson, chief executive of the Law Society, said: “The availability of legal aid and the Jackson proposals are inextricably linked. We agree that there are problems with the current costs regime but the proposals in the Jackson Report which the government has adopted will reduce access to justice for ordinary citizens to the advantage of insurers and business and we cannot keep quiet about that.”
Jackson LJ also criticised the society over the “recent myth” of full costs recovery. “It has for many decades been accepted that a successful litigant does not recover all of his own costs from the other side. The fact that both parties will have some costs liability, even if they win, has long been accepted as imposing a necessary discipline in litigation…This fact does not feature in the Law Society’s campaign material,” he said.
