APIL warns of ‘dumbed down’ lawyers post-ABS
The new president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) today warned of the emergence of a new breed of 'dumbed-down, legal-lite' lawyer following the introduction of alternative business structures.
Addressing APIL's annual conference, David Bott (pictured) predicted that 'potentially massive' new entrants to the personal injury market will be 'very efficient', but 'process-driven', voicing fears that these ABSs will not prioritise the needs of injured people.
'How much free thought, intellect and empathy will be used by this process-driven lawyer?
‘My view is that the new breed is likely to be dumbed down,' said Bott, who runs medium-sized Cheshire practice Bott & Co.
'Ironically, claimants might at first prefer to deal with this new breed of legal-lite adviser, but that happiness may only last until the claimant has a problem, or until their particular, individual injury does not fit into the rigidly defined, immovable process being used by the ABS.
‘Because these new firms could be like hulking steam trains; fantastic at moving ahead but useless at moving in any other direction.'
Bott predicted that PI lawyers who offer a similar service but with 'intellect, agility and a genuine care for the client' can still prosper: ‘The ABS can be quick and wrong, whereas we can be quick and right.'
Inevitably the conference, attended by several hundred delegates at the Celtic Manor resort in Wales, has been dominated by talk of the government's wholesale adoption of Lord Justice Jackson's recommendations on civil litigation costs.
Bott received spontaneous applause as he delivered a damning verdict on the government's indifference to the claimant lobby.
'We are told by the government that 'access to justice for all parties depends on costs being proportionate and unnecessary cases being deterred,' he said.
'"Proportionate", according to Jackson, has no relevance to whether the work was necessary, just on how much it costs. And for unnecessary cases, read anything that insurers don't like.
'The only party to benefit from these proposals is the negligent defendant, or moreover his insurance company, which has collected a premium to pay out in the event of a claim.
‘At the heart of these proposals is a movement of costs away from the negligent defendant and on to the innocent claimant. That is just plain wrong.'
APIL has until 30 June 'to make the injured person's views heard', said Bott, though he warned that justice minister Jonathan Djanogly 'does not see this issue from the claimant's perspective'.
He added: 'I will be doing all I can to disabuse him and Kenneth Clarke of the view that is is OK to under-compensate people.'
APIL is known to be cool on Jackson's recommendation to extend the limit for claims to be processed through the road-traffic-accident (RTA) claims portal from £10,000 to £50,000.
Bott reiterated its opposition, pointing to continuing problems with the portal, such as an inability to amend mistakes and the fact it does not always reflect CPR.
'As a director of Portal Co, let's make this one work better, before we look at extending [it],' he said.
Bott was also dismissive of Lord Young's proposals to extend the portal to cover all claims up to £50,000, accusing Young of being motivated principally by a desire to 'rein back' health and safety legislation.
'Taking care of people is not an option in the 21st century, it is a basic expectation.
‘If there is to be an expansion of the portal, then please let's make the RTA portal the fully functioning, easy-to-use portal that injured people deserve first.'
Bott went to bemoan the demise of the Coroners and Justice Act and Civil Law Reform Bill, and government inertia over the Employers' Liability Insurers Bureau, which would create a fund of last resort for workplace claims.
'The [ELIB] consultation which started in the dying days of the last government appears to have been kicked into the long grass,' he said, 'while a new EL Tracing Office for tracing future claims has been introduced at breakneck speed. So where is that going to leave people struggling to obtain redress for past exposure? Why should people subsidise the insurance industry?'
Comments
A bit late as
The horse has bolted
Pure self interest
... all APIL have any concern about is costs generation (nothing more, nothing less) and how any changes (from which their members formerly benefitted from so significanlty since the CPRs were introduced) might now impact upon their ability to continue to generate grossly disproportionate costs at the expense of the wider population. Pure greed-driven self interest.
Oh, as I am on here, I've just tripped over my shoe lace, I have PTSD as a consequence. I will never work again and need care for the rest of my life. Can I make a claim please?
The only way that claimant
The only way that claimant lawyers are awarded large costs is if the insurance companies don't accept liability when they should, and either accept liability late, by which time work has been incurred, or the finding is against them after a trial. If they accepted liability right away when their client was at fault the costs would be the minimum. If they are right to fight it then the claimant lawyer will get nothing because it is "no win, no fee".
Breath of fresh air
Although I have an appreciation that some areas of the legal profession may have a few small reservations about ABS please be assured you need not worry.
The above article is exactly right in its analysis of our intent to offer people a branded and well marketed service at a highly competitive price. But it should also note that the market for legal personnel is currently awash with really good quality personnel and this labour resource will not only allow the delivery of efficiently priced legal services but also allow us to deal with situations which are not straightforward and process driven.
The idea is to replace those small high street firms with more efficient organisations that benefit from scale.
For the consumer this will keep further, welcome, pressure on fees.
It is just basic efficiency. No longer will you have one solicitor and one secretary but a whole range of legal personnel with various qualifications where work will be reviewed by a solicitor.
This will allow us to offer services at a far lower price.
ABS do not want to offer the same service. Instead we want to be able to improve the service currently offered. Even down to the extent the legal profession has been accused so many times of not respecting diversity. All of the people I have spoken to are hugely confident we will be able to help the legal profession by employing a greater diversity of peoples from a range of backgrounds.
Once the introduction of ABS has occurred and we have gotten our teeth into the market I’m sure consumers will see the huge benefits we can deliver them.
This market discipline is much needed and long overdue. It also couldn’t come at a better time for us with so much supply in this particular labour market. It is clearly the case the supply of solicitors will be far lower than the demand which will allow us to pick the best. We will also, hopefully, be able to persuade others to work for lower wages than anticipated under the pre ABS system so they can work in our well respected profession. We will be creating plenty of call centre posts and as there is so much supply it is a great opportunity to get the HR in place so we can take advantage of the current climate.
As the legal profession changes and we become an entrenched part of the legal landscape we can dispel all the myths about ABS. The Magic Circle will not just survive; it will thrive and go from strength to strength. It is the high street market we wish to dominate or compete in.
Consumers haven’t got long to wait for fairly priced legal services. For all my other ABS friends we will soon be writing articles in the Gazette ourselves so please speak up for the advantages we will bring.
After all, it soon will be our profession and our blog!
Hear hear
Yes, I couldn’t agree more with the above.
There are so many opportunities to provide services to the public at a much fairer price. For example we are looking at linking up with accountants to provide probate and will writing support for their clients helping them to provide a joined up service.
The accountants do audit, accounts, corporate finance, tax and financial planning. They now want to offer an estate service and simply contract out the application of probate, creation of deeds and will writing.
They will do everything else such as the estate accounts, IHT, tax and financial planning advice etc. But they want an efficiently priced provider to do the reserved and contentious work they can’t do.
We will do very nicely out of it and will be providing the services for a huge portfolio of good quality clients. They will gain an efficiently priced partner that will not try and take aspects of the work they already undertake.
Speaking with one of their senior tax partners the other day he even advised that when accountants can apply for probate, probably within the next two years, they almost certainly will stick with us because they like our brand, our projected prices and our obvious ability to deal with the regulated activities needed such as drafting trust deeds etc or actually drafting the will.
He told me ABS change the whole landscape and he couldn’t dream about his firm, or any other regional firm of accountants, doing this even just a few years ago.
Firms venturing into the ABS market should be getting out there and making links with other professional service firms as there are many opportunities to cross sell our services and undercut traditional providers.
I really was enthused in my recent discussions and am looking forward to helping to provide the best legal services at a fair price in the future. Well done for speaking out!
Idealism, stupidity, political or another big bang money deal?
The concept of an ABS is crass stupidity of the highest order and if the policy makers are so stupid as to allow them to go ahead then lets all watch them crash and burn. Remember that a top regional Limited Liability Partnership law firm collapsed because it had been infected by business culture. How did the "consumer" benefit from that?
The new high street solicitors brand is arguably already making a mockery of the legal profession, albeit unintentionally. One poster on the Gazette thought it was a joke! However, a franchising arrangement is not an ABS and is within the current rules. Solicitors still own and run the particpating law firms. That is key point, at present solicitors are not in the pockets of big business, they will be in an ABS structure.
Do you remember HIPS and the Home Inspector Courses? The people that invested money in them do. The Home Information Pack debacle will be nothing compared with the ABS disaster yet to happen.
You can't play lawyers like monkies, most of us know a move or two and if you recruit monkies negligence claims will flood in from the consumer. Do you seriously think the brightest students are going jump over all the hurdles of legal education at £9,000 a year fees to get a job that resembles one of those retail banking adverts? A supervisor of customer service monkies is the reward is it?
I think it is about time the tail stop wagging the dog and some of the so called consumer experts, who know nothing about the law yet want to change it, go back to making cakes for the village fair with the elf and safety experts and the politically correct imbeciles.
Time will tell
I predict we will take market share and and the above bitter comments will be shown to be wholly unjustified. For the assurance of consumers we will be recruiting some of the best law graduates and paying the highest salaries.
Our business model doesn't just allow it - it demands it. We won't accept the mediocre solicitors and only the best will find jobs with us as they will be playing such a crucial review and control function. It is the support workers and scale we will bring which will drive down prices, raise standards and give easier access to justice.
Nonesense
"Remember that a top regional Limited Liability Partnership law firm collapsed because it had been infected by business culture. How did the "consumer" benefit from that?"
What does a pre ABS traditional firm failure say about ABS? Absolutely nothing! How can you possibly use the example of a failing law firm to justify not allowing ABS? What rubbish are you speaking anyway? Do you think the large law firms are not businesses? Would you not say Clifford Chance are a business? Turnover 2009/10 £1,197 million, fee per equity partner £933,000 (source http://www.thelawyer.com/directory/uk-200-table-top-100/)
Traditional law firms desperately trying to protect their monopoly, inflated prices and business models just don't seem to be able to do themselves any favours in their arguments.
Come to mention it - what on earth have HIPS got to do with anything?
All law firms are businesses and there is nothing wrong with making money. Our industry is not a charity.
We just welcome the chance to offer a choice to the general public. We would like to offer them a clear, well marketed service and are very confident we can compete both on price and quality.
We want to offer a better solution both to experienced hire solicitors looking for work and graduates looking for training contracts. We want to attract the best talent so we can offer the best service. But we also acknowledge the many failings of our industry in the past and want to use ABS to help right those mistakes.
We want to make law more inclusive. We want consumers to be able to access the law at a lower price by doing things differently and using fewer layers and more administration staff and couple this model with much greater scale.
We want to offer greater diversity so people from a greater number of backgrounds can be involved in working in the law.
We who are pressing ahead with plans regarding ABS are already putting in place all the planning and groundwork to make things a success. It couldn’t come at a better time for us and I genuinely believe we will benefit the consumer and the whole legal industry.
spelling
I think that clients will still expect lawyers, whether they work in a traditional practice or an MDP, ABS or whatever, to spell correctly. I shall always be grateful for having had a fairly strict English master at school all those years ago!
Dumbing down
Given that we can't spell "nonsense" any more, the dumbing-down process seems to be complete.
The soul, or sole (?) of the law
Or 'soul'.
ABS - ready, steady.........
I think what is not talked about enough is how much solicitors are just putting their heads in the sand. I’m amazed at just how little they are doing! My firm are already in the advanced stages ready to go live but it has been apparent from the start that “traditional” solicitors are just not up to the competition.
We found most law firms appear not to have ever spent time analysing the way they do their work. They only change things when the law changes. We new ABS entrants will not be constrained by looking at how solicitors did things in the past. We examined their systems and rejected them out of hand as being far too costly and involved too many qualified individuals at too many stages.
We have been able to take a blank sheet approach and reinvented the wheel. The costing reductions from using call centres and less qualified staff at the earlier stages are staggering! We can slash costs even with massively enhanced marketing budgets which will allow us to capture huge swathes of the market.
We would like to assure the public that we will not be charging you to reflect the wages paid to a graduate who has been studying law for 6 years! We can drill down so that the vast majority of the actual work can be done by someone with a fraction of the training as they will be totally specialist in one area. We use scale and specialism. It will all be monitored by the best solicitors money can buy who will review the work and handle the complex aspects. But in most cases our economic inputs will be drastically reduced and therefore your fee will be lower too.
I’m sure it’s lovely to have a kindly sole doing basic legal compliance and who is an expert in the Classics, but it is rather expensive!
We also constantly watch the process to extract as many fee earning opportunities where work is more complex. So it is the best of both worlds; transparent fixed costs for the consumer and timely negotiation with clients whose affairs are more complex or where additional work at a higher grade is required.
We will also be heavily marketing our services with every medium going and intend to really shake things up.
I can’t wait!
And....
And are you prepared to tell us who you are so we can keep an eye out?????
Derr! It's an anti-solicitor
Derr! It's an anti-solicitor wind up!
I pity the poor NQ drones
I pity the poor NQ drones (who we all know will be paid a pittance) that have to act as "case reviewer" for the thousands of cases being done by unqualified oiks in the sweat-shops referred to above.
All those wonderful dreams at school of being Kavanagh QC...only to end up as Cathy Callcentre...
ABS
Time to brush up on professional negligence as I predict a potential goldmine when these clowns get started.
My thoughts as well. In my
My thoughts as well.
In my area of litigation I have to be involved in every decision made having considered the pros and cons and advised the client accordingly.
I'm also already seeing many enquiries from clients of other firms where unqualified staff are the norm, supervised of course, yet still have undersettled claims, given incorrect advice, not fully investigated the issues, etc. If the push for profit intensifies this will only get worse.
The ABS structure is no
The ABS structure is no different to how many of the volume "factory firms" operate currently within the RTA market, cosy relationship with a large insurer or introducer of work, dare I say it - owned by the insurer/ introducer, place piled high with casework where the poor souls are uttery tordden on with caseloads in excess of 500 claims. No time to do anything that breaks from the norm, no interest in doing a proper job for the client, because they can't otherwise they will fall behind on their targets and lose pay and bonus. Not to mention the dept manager who does his daily rounds with reports on cases that are x days old and "why haven't you settled that case yet?", "err because I have to get another medical report for my client". Never mind that the manager won't get his poxy bonus because his fee earning team don't hit their KPI's, it's about doing the right job for the clients, not pleasing the poxy bean counters.
Yes ladies & gentlemen, the days of the £15k fee earner are well and truly here. But the negligence claims will be something of legend. We had a PI claim that came from one of the factory firms, solid evidence on the file of papers of the fee earner recommending the client accept £11k for generals. We settled it, net of CRU benefits for £296k!
Access to justice I tells ye :-)
mmmmm ABS can only
mmmmm ABS can only realistically aim for high street work which is already being done at rock bottom prices.
The idea that high street firms are making lots of money from inflated fees is not true.
They pay really low salaries as it is and the only reason they can keep going is because so many law students are desperate for a job.
If that was not the case (and as tuition fees increase to £9,000 and may well not be) most of them would fail.
The market for high street legal services is already saturated and more providers will only further dilute incomes for firms and ABS.
There is not enough work to go round. How will ABS change this? Even if ABS does manage to get work from high street firms, those firms will respond and the fees will go lower still.
It's a no win situation for all parties (even the consumer)
In summary I doubt whether many players will enter the ABS market because the money is not there to be made.
The same arguments were made about factory conveyancers (cheap price, better for the consumer etc etc) but a lot of them have now closed.
The same will happen with ABS. The model assumes a continuos supply of cheap labour but that will not happen as tuition increase to £9,000 per annum.
Too good to be true?
I really hope what I read is correct and solicitors will at last face competition. It looks like 2011 will be a good year as from now on I can shop around and get a good deal.
BTW - don't kid yourselves, solicitors have shocking, SHOCKING service standards. People hate you and are only too happy to know your monopoly is coming to an end.
Too good to be true?
The only reason solicitors are reported as being hated is:
1. because people who have faced an opponent in court and have been beaten blame the winning lawyer for doing a good job for their client.
2. because people get the solicitor and client confused, as the solicitor is just being paid to do what the client has asked.
3. because people think that they have an actual solicitor acting for them so often when usually they have some glorified secretary/head set wearing dodo at best, and yet when things go wrong, they blame 'lawyers' and 'solicitors' get lumped in the mix. E.g if say a licensed conveyancer got something wrong, solicitors may get tarnished.
Solicitors are very good at what they do, as they are THE widest trained legal professional, but because people won't pay for the years of study involved in being that good, they go with second best legal qualifications (and usually get none at all). You can't have it both ways.
Fortunately ABS will simply compete for the sort of clients who expect something for nothing, where cheap cheap cheap is all that matters. It is why there is no supermarket with anywhere close to 100% domination. If they cannot even dominate their own market....zzzzzzz
ABS will not be as people fear....and the good news is that the only outfits who will need to be worried are the cheap outfits, and the factory ones.
Remain excellent at what you do - yes, getting your own house in order is a priority - and you will survive unscathed.
You'll see.
Beg to differ
You forgot to say people hate solicitors for the overcharging.
When customers have a free choice they will opt for the ABS cheaper alternative 9 times out of 10.
ABS will have the muscle and marketing and will take BOTH ends of the market.
The high street will never be the same again.
Great news!!!!
Beg to differ
overcharging by non solicitors also tarnishes 'solicitors' - another good example.
but sure, go cheap, and get less for your money, and mistakes that us solicitors then have to put right.
The value range - we know what value cola tastess like. good luck with the 'cheap' approach.
Solicitors are not appreciated
"Solicitors are very good at what they do, as they are THE widest trained legal professional, but because people won't pay for the years of study involved in being that good, they go with second best legal qualifications (and usually get none at all). You can't have it both ways."
That sums up why we are in the state we are in. In mainland Europe, lawyers were more careful to look after their own interests and kept their self-respect. In Britain, they raced around sucking up to those who did not necessarily mean them well, and cut each other's throats over fees. Good old divide and rule. Once the British consumer thinks he can have it both ways, he will take full advantage.
If a prostitute starts paying her clients for sex, her 'sisters' will soon put her right. Otherwise, the oldest profession would soon collapse. Lessons to learn, or is it too late?
evidence of overcharching?
Will someone please provide some clear examples and evidence of these claims of solicitors overcharging all the time. No doubt there are some bad eggs as in all industries - but do people really think that all these years only selfish, money grabbing people have worked as solicitors and have all 'overcharged' their clients? The new entrants to the profession via ABS seem to think they have the answers to everything, ie how to provide the best quality service at the best value to the client whilst still making a reasonable profit. Do they really believe that this is not what many firms in the legal profession have already been doing for years and years? My firm already balances work between trained but non qualified staff, IT processes and experienced solicitors in order to do this and we offer the option of fixed fees in most cases (we specialise in family law). We are, however, still a very far cry from the conveyancing factory type mix seemingly envisaged by some commentators as being able to bring prices down even cheaper, ie a ratio of far more unqualified call centre staff to qualified supervisers. As someone has already pointed out, the conveyancing factory type service attracted clients initially due to cheap prices but left them extremely cheesed off with the service; calls taken by a different person every time, letters going missing, lack of explanation of aspects of the case, a generally very disjointed service. Pretty much every family client I have had who chose the cheap factory conveyancer flogged by their lender to deal with their matrimonial transfer / sale subsequently asked me to explain all sorts of aspects of the conveyance because they could not get hold of someone at the factory who could answer their questions. The bottom line is that if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys and too many cooks spoil the broth. Those who hate solicitors for their 'shocking service and overcharging' may have had a bad experience somewhere but not all in the profession are the same. I doubt the concerns as to quality of service and price will be resolved by ABS economies of scale outfits, however, as if the balance is incorrectly weighted towards staff lacking in knowledge and experience in order to provide a cheaper service, then the service itself will be lacking. Paying a couple of qualified people to oversee a large number of unqualified staff cannot remedy this as the supervision will obviously be spread too thinly. Sorry to use yet another cliche but you generally get what you pay for and if buy cheap, you'll probably buy twice!
Jackson is Wrong!
Jackson is Wrong!
Jackson and atlernative business structures are not just Claimant (Lawyer) problems.
If (when) Jackson is implementated in full, and ABS' come in, the Defendant insurance companies will no longer be employing the services of qualified/ experienced Lawyers to deal with their fast track claims (either in-house or out). Instead, those claims will be dealt with by kids in call centres, who will input data into a computer and follow a stript.
Likewise, all the Defendant Costs Negotiators and Costs Lawyers dealing with fast track claims will be out of work.
The whole of the personal injury (and, indeed, fast track civil litigation) industry, Claimant and Defendant, is about to be decimated.
Defendant Lawyers, rather than slagging off Claimants, should consider where their bread and butter comes from. They should join forces with APIL etc and fight Jackson (and the ABS').
Most Trainee Solicitors and Legal Executives learn their trade dealing with fast track litigation. Once Jackson is implementated there will be no money spare for any such training files.
When ABS' come in, the Paralegal market (or rather demand for kids in call centres) will increase dramatically; as, of course, it will be unecomonical to employ qualified/ experienced Lawyers when the only costs are those fixed by Jackson.
ILEX fill fold, as will (most definately) the ALCD (now the ACL)
There has never been anything wrong with talented people making a profit. There is, however, everything wrong, with talented people being unable to make a profit because of prohibition.
Stop bemoaning the success of some Claimant Lawyers and start backing the fight against Jackson and his completely erroneous conclusions.
Jackson is Wrong!!!!!
I am a Partner at a medium sized firm whose main source of work is Claimant personal injury.
Having looked at the fixed profit costs proposed in LJ Jackson's report, I cannot see how my firm will be able to continue dealing with fast track PI claims. I doubt it will be possible (in such a competitive market) to charge my own clients anything (either profit costs or success fee) - they will continue to expect 100% of their compensation. There will not be enough money in those fast track files to pay my fee earners, let alone make any profit.
There will be no possibility, whatsoever, of my firm taking on any trainee fee earners (Paralegals, Legal Executives or Solicitors). Indeed, it looks like I will be laying staff off.
I have friends on the Defendant side of the personal injury field who expect their jobs to go as well.
Of course I have great sympathy for those injured through no fault of their own, but now that the threat from Jackson is looming ever closer, I cannot help but worry about my own business and the staff it employs.
The whole idea proposed by Jackson is wrong (utter erroneous in fact) and that the government have accepted those proposals (without even giving proper consideration to the submissions against them) is staggering. This situation is akin to the sudden slaughter of the minning industry in the 1980's. The implementation of Jackson will cost the government far more in lost taxes and unemployment benefits than any saving in costs to the NHS (or even the notional "consumer").
Goodbye my friends - there isn't long left!
I have a mixed bag case load
I have a mixed bag case load of which about a third is multi track. Less than 15% is fast track RTA. I calculated my last 12 months of costs would drop 18% under Jackson's proposals if the full 25% success fee is taken or a reduction of 38% in costs if no success fee is taken. Let's see if insurance premiums go down a fraction of this!
Jackson is right!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - translation
“If (when) Jackson is implementated in full, and ABS' come in, the Defendant insurance companies will no longer be employing the services of qualified/ experienced Lawyers to deal with their fast track claims (either in-house or out). Instead, those claims will be dealt with by kids in call centres, who will input data into a computer and follow a stript.“
Great news – compliance services at a fair price - Jackson is right
“The whole of the personal injury (and, indeed, fast track civil litigation) industry, Claimant and Defendant, is about to be decimated. “
Great news – overqualified people no longer charging me for basic legal services. - Jackson is right
“Defendant Lawyers, rather than slagging off Claimants, should consider where their bread and butter comes from. They should join forces with APIL etc and fight Jackson (and the ABS').”
Expected news – let’s try and protect our closed shop. - Jackson is right
“When ABS' come in, the Paralegal market (or rather demand for kids in call centres) will increase dramatically; as, of course, it will be unecomonical to employ qualified/ experienced Lawyers when the only costs are those fixed by Jackson.2
Great news – fewer blood suckers - Jackson is right
“There has never been anything wrong with talented people making a profit. There is, however, everything wrong, with talented people being unable to make a profit because of prohibition.”
What he means is because people have legal qualifications they should be guaranteed a salary as the work owes us a living.
- Jackson is most definitely right to stop this.
Thank God for common sense!!!!!!
Understand the sentiment, not
Understand the sentiment, not too sure the reality will be quite as benign as you anticipate.
Much more likely that the costs "target" will remain the same (or higher) but the advice will be low quality, with the entire ethos being sales driven i.e. stuff the client, we want the money.
This attitude is what happened with Banks when they sacked old style managers, and instead imposed targets for selling "products".
We should all be careful what we wish for, we may just get it.
Understand the sentiment, not
Understand the sentiment, not too sure the reality will be quite as benign as you anticipate.
Much more likely that the costs "target" will remain the same (or higher) but the advice will be low quality, with the entire ethos being sales driven i.e. stuff the client, we want the money.
This attitude is what happened with Banks when they sacked old style managers, and instead imposed targets for selling "products".
We should all be careful what we wish for, we may just get it.
Exactly. In 2003 the
Exactly. In 2003 the predictive costs regime was meant to be the end. It wasn't. Neither was the MOJ portal. Solicitors are excellent at adapting. Many firms will do the absolute minimum to get the cases turned over and settled ASAP. The quality of advice will drop without question. Solicitor/client contact will be reduced. Claims with complex or unusual issues may not be taken on or simply dropped. Innocent victims of faulty work practices, dangerous products or idiot drivers may also not recover all of what they've lost with success fees and after the event indurance (still needed to cover their own dusbursements) being unrecoverable. Solicitors won't be the losers here. It'll be the consumer. It'll be like the Accident Group all over again when awards of £4000 and £5000 whittled down to £500 in some cases with all the deductions. As an aside it's funny how most people despise lawyers. That is until they need our help!
Lenders to take a leading role in conveyancing quality - optima
It is reported that Optima - 'quality incarnated' - think Lenders will want to influence consumers on which conveyancer to choose...to sell them their preferred ones. Optima think they should be in line to be one of those conveyancers.