Costly exercise

I cannot help responding to the comment article by Bill Gibson attempting to justify so-called costs negotiators (see [2002] Gazette, 21 February, 16).

In essence, he says that the reason for the upsurge in costs negotiators is because they are saving their clients from greedy, unscrupulous solicitors.

I would suggest that the facts are in fact the reverse, and if such greedy, unscrupulous solicitors exist then they are as a result of these so-called costs negotiators.The real reason for the upsurge in such organisations is because of the cash-flow problems thrust upon solicitors as a result of the abolition of legal aid and the upsurge of conditional fees.

This applies a fortiori to personal-injury practitioners.

In such a climate, solicitors are more likely to under-settle their costs to relieve cash-flow problems, rather than go through the procedure of a detailed assessment.Mr Gibson almost seems surprised that costs negotiators are despised.

The reason is simple.

Not only are they unqualified but by and large their approach to costs is the wrong one.

The approach appears to be on the basis of how much they can reduce the solicitors' bill, thus increasing their percentage.The correct approach to a professional bill of costs is to ask what is fair and reasonable for the work done.

It is because both sides are approaching the problem of the quantum of costs using a different measuring stick that the problem arises.One day insurance companies will wake up and realise that outsourcing the question of costs is in fact costing them more than they are truly saving.

Colin Simpson, chief assessor, Law Society's personal injury panel