header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
09 September 2010 / Patrick Allen
Issue: 7432 / Categories: Features , Fees , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Reference point

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

What next for referral fees, asks Patrick Allen

The Law Society Council voted to permit referral fees in 2004 and new rules enabled claims companies and insurers to make open agreements for referrals. In the past, lack of transparency had caused consumer harm when services were deemed to be hidden referral fees and unrecoverable. Terms could now be developed which were advantageous to clients as they included minimum service standards and guarantees such as no deductions from damages. The stability of large volumes of work enabled firms to invest in IT and develop specialist teams.

The legal landscape has changed out of all recognition since 2004, especially in the areas of personal injury (PI) and conveyancing. Claims companies have grown and perfected their internet and TV advertising. They are regulated by the Ministry of Justice which does not report any great problems. This change in the landscape was confirmed in the 2007 report by Moulton Brown for the Law Society (Referral arrangements and legal services report 2007)—“We found it difficult to identify

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

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll