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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll