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

NLJ Career Profile: Maryam Syed KC, Church Court Chambers

NLJ Career Profile: Maryam Syed KC, Church Court Chambers

From childhood dreams of the Bar to some of the country's most challenging cases, Maryam Syed KC explains why she has never stopped standing up for others

DAC Beachcroft—Richard Breavington, Rachel Ford & Daniel Guilfoyle

DAC Beachcroft—Richard Breavington, Rachel Ford & Daniel Guilfoyle

DAC Beachcroft significantly expands Cyber team, hiring three Cyber partners

Browne Jacobson—Professor Clive Kay

Browne Jacobson—Professor Clive Kay

Browne Jacobson appoints senior healthcare leader Professor Clive Kay as strategic adviser

NEWS
As family justice moves further away from the courtroom, collaborative law is emerging as an increasingly important route to resolving separation disputes
A busy period for employment law is producing important lessons for employers, employees and tribunals alike
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll