The case of Alin Turcu in the Beckham kidnap story does not discredit conditional fee agreements in libel actions, argues David Price

The picture painted of conditional fee agreement (CFA) lawyers in the past few weeks is not a pretty one. It is of practitioners pursuing unmeritorious claims, charging £900 an hour, stifling freedom of expression and holding newspapers to ransom.


Nothing new there - CFAs have been under attack since their implementation for use in defamation proceedings in 1998. Media organisations are lobbying hard to change the system, and the recent case of CFA-advised Alin Turcu in the Beckham kidnap story in the News of the World is just the latest opportunity to bash the system.


The CFA system is an important one. Its most basic tenet is to enable those with a meritorious claim or defence, but without means, to obtain legal representation - and any change to the system could impact on access to justice. Accordingly, a fair and honest debate, based in reality, is required. As Mr Justice Eady said in the Turcu case: 'Journalists in the exercise of their rights to freedom of expression, need to be permitted a degree of exaggeration.'


They have deployed more than a little exaggeration in their depiction of CFAs. The £900-an-hour jibe is a good soundbite but it is not something that anyone involved on either side of the CFA divide has ever seen happen in reality. In the real world, costs judges assess and deals are done.


CFA lawyers do not pursue unmeritorious actions. That would be commercial suicide; on a CFA, if you lose you do not get paid. My firm strongly believes the Turcu case was meritorious and it was recognised by Mr Justice Eady that the allegations were of the utmost seriousness. The News of the World alleged that our client was the surveillance expert of an international terror gang about to kidnap Victoria Beckham and her children, and was prepared to kill her if a £5 million ransom was not paid. The judge found that our client's role as the 'surveillance expert' was a News of the World invention. Therefore, we found the resulting judgment against his libel claim to be surprising - and we will be appealing.


Wealthy media organisations profess to be shivering in a climate of chilled free speech, forced to settle unmeritorious claims for fear of large costs whether they win or lose, and self-censoring, all as a result of the CFA system. It is completely unrealistic to think that national newspapers - which make hundreds of millions of pounds a year - will not publish an article out of fear that the person being written about will then be represented on a CFA. The balance of power is still very much on the media defendants' side.


Any pressure to settle a case when faced with an opponent without money is merely part of a whole raft of commercial considerations facing press organisations every day. The overall increase in circulation flowing from a policy of running sensational stories will always outweigh the cost incurred on those occasions when the newspaper is sued.


If it does not, it raises questions as to the level of the newspaper's own costs. If faced with an impecunious claimant, a newspaper must fight the case in the most proportionate manner possible. This is the way my firm litigates, as is shown in our costs in the Turcu case, which are less than half those of the News of the World.


We have a long record of successes in defamation cases, be they privately funded or on CFAs, because newspapers do libel people, innocently or otherwise. We will continue to provide access to justice to meritorious claimants and defendants by offering CFAs and by litigating our cases proportionately.


David Price is a solicitor-advocate specialising in defamation at London-based David Price Solicitors & Advocates, which acted for Alin Turcu