Never overlook funding options

It all used to be very easy.

Clients paid in cash.

Money laundering hadn't been invented and if you knew them well enough, and they had used your firm before, you might just accept a cheque.

If they were really poor, there was legal aid.

And that was about it really, there was nothing else.

Quite suddenly - or so it seems - a funding revolution has taken place.

In civil litigation public funding is now largely unavailable, except for initial advice for those on certain benefits or very low incomes, and for a diminishing range of legal actions.

The results are mixed, with a variety of funding schemes now available, many of which can be tailored to suit the individual needs of clients.

Products are arriving weekly and probably provide greater access to justice for the majority.

The principle of 'the more options the better' must serve to provide greater flexibility than ever before.

But what does the solicitor have to do to comply with the Costs Information and Client Care Code 1999? In simple terms, the solicitor must consider all relevant options, including the use of costs cover of which your client may be unaware, such as in household and motor insurance policies.

Never overlook facilities offered by trade unions, insurers and their myriad of products, and the expanding number of conditional fee options now available, not to mention motoring and other clubs and societies, fixed fee arrangements and law centres.

It is not as daunting as it may seem.

A few simple questions will exclude many possibilities.

To comply with the code, the solicitor must be in a position to provide evidence that all relevant options have been considered, explained to the client and advice given where appropriate.

If a client is advised that his insurance policy will cover him but it means using another firm, the solicitor will have done what he should do in the best interests of his client.

If the client says 'thanks, but I want to stay with you and utilise another form of funding that may not be quite as cheap', there is nothing wrong with that.

The advice will have been provided and the choice will be that of the client.

The option to choose a scheme that is in the client's best interest, affordable and that provides, where possible, a measure of certainty for both solicitor and client, must be of benefit to the parties and the justice system generally.

If the client later complains of a lack of detailed and comprehensive costs information, the solicitor who cannot demonstrate that the topic has been dealt with fully must be at risk of a finding of service inadequacy, together with a liability for the costs of the investigation.

Every case before the Law Society's adjudication panel is decided on its individual facts