Jackson implementation ‘a complete shambles’ say litigators
The president of an organisation representing more than 1,000 civil litigators has added her voice to a growing chorus of alarm about the rushed implementation of the Jackson reforms.
Francesca Kaye (pictured), president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, described the Ministry of Justice’s handling of new rules to support the reforms as ‘shambolic’ and ‘deeply concerning’.
A copy of the statutory instruments setting out the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2013 was published today. However the profession is still awaiting new practice directions, she said.
‘It’s been a complete shambles,’ Kaye said. ‘There is a limit to how much lawyers can prepare for change without seeing the detailed practice directions. The legal profession is a huge business.
‘We now have 29 working days (or less) to train everyone for major changes upon which the success of major pieces of litigation may turn. I can’t think that in the private sector or even the public sector such a significant change would be implemented in 29 days.’
The Law Society last month called on the government to consider delaying the implementation of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act, saying that rushed and ill-judged implementation will damage public confidence in the justice system.
Comments
Jackson implementation
It certainly is a shambles. The portal isn't ready (if it ever will be), the implementation process is layered with moving goal posts regarding the detail and there is considerable uncertainty in the market as regards contingency fees, CFAs, ATE and referral fees.
Ever since Ken Clarke left the Ministry of Justice, its like policy implementation has come across a range of challenges - many of which were seen in advance by industry, practitioners and their representative and regulatory bodies.
No wonder there is a marked increase in the number of firms looking to exit the PI market.
I disagree. I'm not sure it
I disagree.
I'm not sure it is a shambles.
It's far worse than that.
It is indeed a shambles. We
It is indeed a shambles. We don't have practice directions and the Rules Committee has already confirmed that it will amend the rules again next month to deal with the fact that these new amendments would appear to impose the new rule of proportionality retrospectively.
Both sides of the divide have been warning of a costs war ever since LASPO was first mooted. Does the MOJ really want this or would they rather that the changes were brought in with a certain amount of consensus and a desire on both sides to see them work?
The only winners here will be the costs negotiators who will have more work than they can handle arguing about the minutiae of what the new rules mean - because they probably don't say what was intended.
And of course, those of us on the claimant side have no choice but to get counsel signed up on a CFA before 1st April even if we might not have instructed counsel at all but for LASPO. So more front loading of costs just to make sure we don't end up being sued for counsel's success fee.
Will the MOJ wake up and smell the coffee before it's too late? Sadly, I don't think they even understand the problems they have created in their rush to implement something however flawed.
Yes shambles shambles shambles
Yes a complete shambles. I am having to send all of my personal injury files off to Counsel to review, because no one has a clue what the recoverability of their success fees will be after 1st April. What a waste of time, what chaos, what stupidity. Is there anyone out there who is going to get a grip? With the cuts in Legal Aid to Family work, do they want the justice system to grind to a halt, or is some coalition cavalry troop going to ride over the horizon to save us all from this ill conceived regulatory massacre.
But what about the rest of
But what about the rest of the rules as well - it isn't just LASPO.
They have got rid of the Allocation Questionnaire, to be replaced by a new "Directions Questionnaire". (No doubt it will be the same just with a different name, but it would be nice if somebody bothered to tell us).
They have changed the procedure on allocation to track so that the court staff now make the decision (with the parties given a right to request a review by a DJ).
They have entirely re-written the Costs Rules from beginning to end. Part 36 Offers replace Part 47.19 offers. I haven't got the time to compare the old with the new line by line, so it isn't immediately apparent what else they have changed (other than of course the provisional assessment pilot has been made final).
Relief from sanctions has been replaced.
Small Claims for non-PI cases are now £10,000(!) - I know of no clients for whom £10,000 could be considered "small". So let's look forward to some complex building disputes, or contract repudiation claims getting argued between litigants in person in a block list on an afternoon before a Deputy DJ.
You are missing the point
All of the above are" fair comment", but miss the Governments point.
It is this so called Governments stated objective to reduce the number of claims brought. I can only assume that the complexities and idiocies that these changes will produce are, if not intended to have that effect, for intention implies forethought, something about which the Government could not care less.
A colleague recently told me
A colleague recently told me that he was before a circuit judge. They discussed the new changes. According to my colleague the Judge was expressing disbelief, saying he didn't have a clue what the new rules were or what was coming in and what wasn't.
If the judiciary, or some of them at least, don't have a clue what's going on there's little help for the rest of us commoners.
Great job Chris Grayling. Keep earning your salary that we the tax payer fund. If this was in the private sector he wouldn't last 5 minutes. Seems to me that you can only get away with such incompetence if you're in the public sector and haven't lived in the real world where we have to strive.
Anyone for a rail contract? Apparently the same government presided over that shambolic dogs breakfast as well. Imagine that...
At least we still have our AAA credit rating.... Oh no, we've lost that too.
Same old Tories behind the cobwebs just a different frontman.