header-logo header-logo

Seeing both sides

18 November 2011 / Patrick Allen
Issue: 7490 / Categories: Opinion , Legal services
printer mail-detail

Patrick Allen rallies against anti-referral fee rhetoric

The proposed ban on referral fees is a profoundly anti-consumer measure, based on prejudice and the interests of insurers, which cannot be justified by the facts or practicalities.

Contrary to the spin from the Association of British Insurers, referral fees are not paid by insurers or clients and are not a recoverable item in the bill of costs of a successful claimant. They are a marketing overhead paid by some solicitors to acquire work. If solicitors could acquire that work more cheaply in their own marketing campaigns, they would do so. However, they mostly lack the expertise and reach, which comes with big spending, to operate in a highly competitive market.

Evidence about the workings of referral fees was painstakingly gathered by the Legal Services Board (LSB) between 2009 and 2010. The LSB could find no detriment to consumers in the payment of referral fees, only benefits. Referral fees have played an important part in freeing up the personal injury market, by providing information about claims, and

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll