The rights and wrongs of contingency fees is one of the great debates. One side sees them egging on unscrupulous lawyers to fuel a crazed litigation culture, as in the US. The other says they reward lawyers for the results achieved for clients, rather than the work put in, and ensure costs are proportionate to damages.

Two recent reports have sought to dispel some of the negative myths that have grown up around contingency fees. The Civil Justice Council found the situation in the US to be nothing like as bad as has been portrayed, while this week’s study of the use of contingency fees in employment tribunals uncovered little evidence of serious abuse.

One of the concerns was over possible conflicts of interest when it comes to settlement. But every form of charging has a conflict inherent in it – conditional fees, like contingency fees, encourage the lawyer to settle and ensure they are paid; the hourly rate pushes the lawyer to keep going.

The reality is that, with conditional fees and fixed costs for road traffic cases – where fees are to a degree related to damages – we are some way down the road to contingency fees. Dissatisfaction with the system is now greater than ever and these reports indicate that contingency fees, probably combined with the abolition of costs-shifting, are a radical reform worth consideration.