The third NLJ/LSLA Litigation Trends Survey reveals that 85% of litigators now believe that litigation costs will continue to be driven up by the new budgeting regime—up from 69% in August 2013.
Ten-month delays for arranging case management conferences, an increase in the early costs of litigation “for no discernible improvement”, and uncertainties as to sanctions for non-compliance are just some of the woes shared by litigators in the survey.
However, although the survey suggests a hardening of views that budgeting increases costs, there has been a notable reduction in the number of litigators who believe that the post Jackson regime will reduce access to justice for clients and prospective clients (50% in September 2014, down from 93% in August 2013). Meanwhile, a growing number of litigators are turning their backs on conditional fee agreements (CFAs)—59% said they are stopping using them, compared with 34% in 2013.
John Bramhall, LSLA president, says: “The Denton ruling has helped to restore sensible collaboration among litigators which had been in danger of being irreparably undermined by Mitchell, and other rulings around relief from sanctions.
“When common sense is allowed to prevail we have a much better chance of containing costs and achieving decent outcomes for our clients. That said, it is hard to escape the continuing concerns that litigators have, notably those with larger teams who make up 66% of our survey respondents—and that is that post-reform budgeting regimes have forced costs up and will continue to do so.
“This is of course the opposite of what reformers hoped to achieve. It suggests that after a suitable bedding-in period, we should take stock to see if further adjustments can be made that bring us closer to achieving the end goal of a more efficient, cost-effective process which we all wish to work towards.”
Jan Miller, NLJ editor, says: “Market sentiment is hard to measure but with this survey we can show clear emerging trends on the impact of legal reforms. It is valuable data that both supports the view that in time firms will adjust to changes but also that those changes need to be kept under review if they are to be effective.”
