What the profession craves more than anything is a prolonged period of certainty and stability

The government’s decision last week to initiate an academic review of ‘no win, no fee’ agreements came totally out of the blue.

This is an area that will soon be ‘reviewed out’ – the Master of the Rolls is planning a review of the costs system, while we live on in increasingly vain hope that the government will issue its conclusions from the claims process consultation (we will shortly pass the first anniversary of the consultation’s closing date). We are also waiting for the result of the consultation on conditional fee agreements (CFAs) in publications proceedings, which closed a mere eight months ago.

In fact, there is a school of thought that it was media companies’ anti-CFA lobbying that prompted this review, which will focus on whether ‘no win, no fee’ has brought access to justice in personal injury, employment and defamation cases. In terms of volume of cases at least, defamation is very small beer when compared with the other two.

What the profession craves more than anything is a prolonged period of certainty and stability – and with every new review, and the changes that may follow, the hope of that slips away. Yes, the costs war has dogged CFAs and it is a problem that needs urgent resolution, but nobody is seriously suggesting that CFAs have not increased access to justice in a world denuded of legal aid.