Civil justice advisers condemn PI fixed fees as ‘unrealistic’

Finally, at least some "body" out there has noticed the scavenging tactics that government is aiming to look down at Claimant, who aren't his "buddies". This is really becoming the joke of the decade. It will certainly go down in the history books as precedents that how government intended to push Claimants down by forcing rules down the publics throat.

Forgive me for what may seem like a stupid question, but why should the govt have any say whatsoever in relation to these legal fees?

Claimant solicitors aren't employees of the state. Why, therefore, should they be prevented from setting their own fees?

There are already mechanisms in place to ensure they don't become unreasonablly high.

I am a solicitor but do not do pi.
I have no interest in pi.
Spam from CMC's winds me up
I voted tory in the last election.

However, anyone with half a brain cell can see what is going on here.

The question really is why does the government want to hit the pockets of lawyers (who pay a lot of taxes and create jobs) to benefit insurers who do not? We all know how insurers behave when a claim goes in. They spend shed loads of money resisting even claims that they know have merit. It just does not make sense.

We all know why costs on some cases get so high and it is nothing to do with the Claimant.

Mr Cameron I am a tory but i think you and your posh mates are a bunch of idiots who are so out of touch and so clueless that I despair. As I get older and a little wiser the more I detest politicians and the more respect I have for the legal profession who uphold true values.

The other day i was called an ambulance chaser by a Defendant who owed my client a lot of money (which he admitted) but took objection to the steps I was taking to recover it. The disdain that this person has for me is the same as Cameron et al has for us. Protect big business and the super rish and everyone else can just **** off.

There could actually be minimum wage issues here and ironic that son of LASPO could actually be contrary to existing low pay legislation.

the government have no interest in getting involved in what PI solicitors charge, which should be left to the existing guidance which is provided by the court, but MP's who cosy up to the insurance industry and big business have interests in the funding that the large insurance companies can provide for their campaigns and promises of lucrative consultancy seats on their boards. These proposals cannot benefit the innocent person who has been the victim of an accident and can only benefit the insurance industry. So much for standing up for the man on the street.

He may choose to abide by the word of those who actually have some experience...or he may charge on into a thicket of moral turpitude, unconstitutionality, hubris and institutional breakdown unknown in modern times outside third world banana republics.

All PI lawyers know what is happening and why. APIL have started a JR but despite so many valid and well documented arguments against the changes, the catastrophic consequences for accident victims and the potential damage to the economy generally at a time of triple dip recession, why are we all sat here not trying to win the PR war?? Members of the public don't know what is going on and how it will affect them. Who will inform them? We all need to collectively do something so that public opinion turns in our favour. How much more damage can we allow this government to inflict upon the economy.

If we all contributed some funds to a large scale PR campaign in the next 8 weeks( national papers, radio, TV) to at least make the public aware of how the government has behaved and the consequences, we may achieve a partial U -turn.

If we all did something at a local level, it will soon gather pace at a national level and before we know it the tide may turn.

Interesting commentary Phil. Perhaps you could enlighten us with your expertise on the subject of fraud, exaggeration and false claims and tell us how the Courts are simply allowing these cases to be paid willy nilly under the current system. I assume you were aware that these types of cases do get in front of a Judge and that he is required to make a finding.........

It would appear this was passed to the press only hours after the JR was submitted. Surely Mr Grayling isn't doing this in a spiteful manner and collecting up all the toys so no-one can play and trying to play hardball over this...........however, as each day passes I am getting more and more used to this communist state we're living in......

I went to see my local MP who told me that the compensation culture had gotten out of control and legal aid shouldn't foot the bill for all personal injury claims any more.

MP's intellectually challenged? Surely not....

As we all expect, Part 36 CPR won't apply to the new one way qualified costs shifting.

This will be interesting when Defendants make a Part 36 CPR offer of settling the case on a 1% / 99% liability basis in their favour won't it...

Part 36 CPR does not have to be a financial offer.

What will happen then?

Any rise in the small claims limit will simply force claimants into the hands of the lowest bidders on DBA's. There will be a surge to non qualified representatives, with unregulated companies springing up and undercutting those solicitors (if any) who do manage to find a working model.

Net result, access to justice in the hands of wide boys (and of course insurers - and the likes of inter-resolve).

Great work Grayling. On the subject of idiots, and childish behaviour, and self-serving greed, Grayling recently said "the government still want to hear the views of stakeholders and the public". Really? I must have missed the govt tv campaign telling the public how these changes will eat into their (reducing) damages, and prevent them obtaining advice from solicitors in many cases, all to the greater good of boosting insurer profits. Anyone else catch that campaign?

Still, the downtrodden public are now so used to government ineptitude that a plan designed to rid them of further rights, demolish an entire industry to the detriment of the UK economy (credit where due...the govt do seem to be VERY good at that, at least) and put health and safety back to the dark ages might not raise many eyebrows.

While we still have the ability in the UK to speak our minds (I'm sure that will go at some point too), I'd like to offer my considerd opinion that Mr Grayling is the latest in a string of idiots who has demonstrated beyond any possible doubt that he does not have the IQ required to safely run a lawnmower, let alone conduct the future of justice.