header-logo header-logo

21 May 2010
Issue: 7418 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Referral fees do not harm clients, says LSB

Report warns regulation could see return of `creative schemes’
Clients are not suffering on quality or cost as a result of referral fees in conveyancing and personal injury, a Legal Services Board (LSB) report has found.

Referral fees are prevalent in both areas. The LSB is considering the Law Society’s call for referral fees to be banned, and is expected to make a decision in the summer. Lord Justice Jackson also called for a ban on referral fees in his final report into the costs of  civil litigation published earlier this year.

The cost benefit analysis, carried out for the LSB by Charles River Associates, found that while referral fees for conveyancing have increased, conveyancing fees paid by the consumer have not. Neither was quality affected. The report states: “Evidence on the number of complaints is low, customer satisfaction is high and the speed of transaction appears to be faster for those who pay referral fees.”

The report warns that banning referral fees could lead to a return to the situation seen before 2004 where “creative schemes” were used to get around the restrictions.

Referral fees in personal injury have risen from about £250 per case in 2004 to about £800 today, the report found. However, there was no evidence that this had led to an increase in the price of legal services. Most personal injury cases are “no win no fee”, and the majority of motor cases go through prescribed cost and fast track regimes.

Since there was no evidence of detriment, altering referral fees for personal injury work would be unlikely to bring benefits, the report concluded.
Endorsing the report’s conclusions Andrew Twambley, senior partner, Amelans, says: “Jackson LJ regards referral fees as the cornerstone of a huge problem....increased litigation costs. Personally, I do not pay referral fees, but if I did I would be making a commercial marketing decision in respect of my business. Gone are the days when I might sit and wait for local people to pop in with an injury claim. Times have moved on.

“I am a director of injurylawyers4u, the UK’s leading solicitors’ marketing consortium. Since inception we have dealt with over 200,000 calls from injured clients and haven’t had any complaints about members contributing to the marketing cost. As long as the client is made aware of the arrangement, he doesn’t care as it in no way affects him.”

Issue: 7418 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

42BR Barristers—4 Brick Court

42BR Barristers—4 Brick Court

42BR Barristers to be joined by leading family law set, 4 Brick Court, this summer

Winckworth Sherwood—Rubianka Winspear

Winckworth Sherwood—Rubianka Winspear

Real estate and construction energy offering boosted by partner hire

Gateley Legal—Daniel Walsh

Gateley Legal—Daniel Walsh

Firm bolsters real estate team with partner hire in Birmingham

NEWS
A wave of housing and procedural reforms is set to test the limits of tribunal capacity. In his latest Civil Way column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold charts sweeping change as the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 begins biting
Plans to reduce jury trials risk missing the real problem in the criminal justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, David Wolchover of Ridgeway Chambers argues the crown court backlog is fuelled not by juries but weak cases slipping through a flawed ‘50%’ prosecution test
Emerging technologies may soon transform how courts determine truth in deeply personal disputes. In this week's NLJ, Madhavi Kabra of 1 Hare Court and Harry Lambert of Outer Temple Chambers explore how neurotechnology could reshape family law
A controversial protest case has reignited debate over the limits of free expression. In NLJ this week, Nicholas Dobson examines a Quran-burning incident testing public order law
The courts have drawn a firm line under attempts to extend arbitration appeals. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed of the University of Leicester highlights that if the High Court refuses permission under s 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, that is the end
back-to-top-scroll