MoJ to crack down on contingency fees

MoJ-Roz.jpg
Wednesday 01 July 2009 by Rachel Rothwell

The government is seeking a new power to regulate contingency fees – which is likely to include a percentage cap - in a bill tabled today.

A new clause in the Coroners and Justice Bill introduced into the House of Lords today will provide the statutory framework for regulation of contingency fees, which are widely used in employment tribunals.

The Ministry of Justice has launched a consultation coinciding with the bill to look at exactly how the regulation of contingency fees should work.

It seeks views on the merits of introducing a general maximum percentage of damages that can be charged under a contingency fee. It also considers a ‘sliding scale’ which would reflect the complexity of the case, the work done and the likely level of damages awarded.

The consultation makes it clear that the government intends to control the use of ‘unfair’ settlement clauses and exit clauses in contingency agreements, which it says are designed to ‘penalise claimants’ when they wish to change representative. It points to ‘anecodotal evidence’ that a claimant who ends their agreement can be forced to pay the solicitor or other representative ‘up to £500 for every six months during which their file has been open, regardless of the work carried out’.

The consultation also states that current requirements for solicitors and claims managers to provide information on costs are insufficient and lead to confusion for clients. It asks for views on how these should be improved.
The full consultation is available at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/consultations/regulating-damges-based-agreements.htm

Comments

Contingency Fee Proposals

The consultation paper far from cracking down actually leaves a very large margin for debate. Having conducted a number of studies into the area, I've drafted some thoughts on the consultation paper which are available on my blog. Practitioner input would be read with great interest: http://civiljustice.wordpress.com/

Basically I think that the need to regulate percentages is weak; that trying to improve information to clients needs to be done in ways other than simply tring to improve or enforce existing rules better but that the detailed terms of DBAs need careful thought. Standardisation could protect the profession from criticism and allow competition to take place on a level playing field.