A behavioural code of practice for multi-track cases is needed to make claimant lawyers pursue clients' interests, argues Andrew Underwood

No one would disagree with the message from Allan Gore - the new president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) - that there should be fair and speedy compensation for accident victims.


Like Mr Gore, I believe that it should be perfectly achievable; however, the implication that the blockage is entirely caused by insurers (and their lawyers) is somewhat blinkered. It ignores the most significant threat to the compensation system, namely the spiralling cost of claims.


Despite civil justice funding reforms and the Woolf reforms, in 2004 Datamonitor reported an increase in the cost of claims by 10% to £7.2 billion.


APIL members are as responsible as insurers (and their solicitors) for the many failings of the system. No society can afford compensation at any price, and there is no facility for the blank cheque that many claimant lawyers may like to see.


The Forum of Insurance Lawyers (FOIL) welcomes the work the government has instigated to address the issue of a compensation culture through a newly formed Department for Constitutional Affairs action group.


A review tackling practices that spread misconceptions and false expectations about the compensation system is required and the effectiveness and efficiency of the system must be improved for those who have genuine claims.


Mr Gore states the increased cost of claims should be passed to the 'polluters' who cause them in the first place. That is fine rhetoric, but what about practicalities? Take motor claims - the largest sector in terms of personal injury claims, accounting for almost half. The cost to the victims involved in accidents with uninsured drivers is £500 million annually, but I am unclear how APIL intends uninsured motorists to pay for their 'pollution'?


The reality is that we all pay for the cost of claims through higher premiums or cost of goods and services as the companies pass on the increased insurance cost as an additional overhead.


FOIL welcomes the attention that APIL gives to rehabilitation. However, the antagonistic attitude of some claimant lawyers strikes at the heart of the problem in the system, namely behaviour in the claims environment.


If the spiralling cost of claims is to be controlled, claimant lawyers need to change business models to reflect fee income as a fixed case commodity. This will encourage more efficient processes and reduce the incentive to duplicate. Defendant insurance lawyers have adapted to such an environment, so why can't claimant lawyers?


FOIL has instigated a debate on the possibility of developing a behavioural code around multi-track cases. It is agreed by all participants that the personal injury pre-action protocol fails to address the behaviour and particular demands that this type of claim requires.


Any new code should work to facilitate and encourage engagement, putting the claimant at the heart of the process. The aim must be how to resolve issues of disagreement while promoting rehabilitation and fair and timely compensation where justified.


Claimant lawyers must ensure that the interests pursued are those of their clients, not themselves. Only then might we see real change.


Andrew Underwood is a partner at Bolton-based law firm Keoghs and president of the Forum of Insurance Lawyers