header-logo header-logo

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

Seeing both sides

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

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
back-to-top-scroll