Personal injury lawyers should get behind the changes to the claims process to ensure the new system works, argues Henry Bermingham


Whether lawyers like it or not, we live in a time of change. The government response to its claims process review consultation is said to be imminent and legal services reform is on the horizon.



Naturally, this has led to a certain escalation of tensions in the personal injury market. At a time like this, all parts of the profession need to manage change carefully, acting together and not engaging in soundbite warfare. Our collective futures depend on what will happen in the next few months. Indeed, as defendant lawyers, we at the Forum of Insurance Lawyers (FOIL) are well aware that there would be no need for us if claimants' solicitors did not issue and pursue claims.



It was therefore disappointing to read about the recent hostile reaction to the Association of British Insurers' (ABI) lobbying on claims process reform (see [2008] Gazette, 28 March, 1). After all, it is worth taking time for a reality check here. The economic reality - whether we like it or not - is that the insurance industry underpins the entire personal injury market. This ranges from providing before-the-event and after-the-event products that open up access to justice and support conditional fee agreements to instructing lawyers - often FOIL members - to defend their policyholders. Certain insurers are also engaging directly with injured people and settling the small 'liability admitted' cases quickly and efficiently. Although this process - known as third-party capture --has its critics, there is presently no empirical evidence to suggest that large numbers of claimants are left short-changed by the process.



Returning to the ABI's comments, it is worth looking beyond the recent headlines to what was actually said. The ABI was unambiguous on this: 'We are not attacking lawyers. But we are attacking a system that is too slow and too cumbersome.' It would be difficult to find a serious commentator on either side of the personal injury world who would not agree with that sentiment. Indeed, in a time of change it is important to focus on the issues we do agree about.



First, the current process is less than perfect. It is too slow, too expensive and open to abuse. Second, we all want to see a process that puts the injured person at its centre and delivers access to justice at a proportionate cost. After all, it is worth bearing in mind that every person who reads this article will hold insurance of one form or another. If cost is disproportionate we all pay.



The government says it will publish its long-awaited response imminently. We at FOIL support the outline reforms. They should deliver compensation to claimants much more quickly than the present system does.



Whatever the government response contains, change is coming - and all personal injury practitioners will have to alter what they do. It is in all our interests to put away our differences and to work together to make that change successful. Only in a calm atmosphere can workable and sustainable change be achieved.



We at FOIL are ready, willing and able to start making the change as soon as we hear from the government. Our invitation to all in this debate is to join us in making the change and in making the new claims process work.



Henry Bermingham is president of FOIL and a partner at Berrymans Lace Mawer