Costly issue

It is almost certainly not correct that 'half of all personal injury lawyers are opposed to a fixed-costs regime in fast-track cases...' as you reported recently (see [2002] Gazette, 16 May, 1).

The survey which you commented on was conducted by the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, an organisation with which the Forum of Insurance Lawyers has an excellent working relationship.

However, it cannot be said that APIL represents all personal injury lawyers.

It does not in fact claim to represent all claimant PI lawyers, as the Motor Accident Solicitors Society (which has a fixed costs scheme) would no doubt be quick to confirm.

Neither does it seek to represent the views of defendant PI lawyers, many of whom are members of FOIL.

According to the Law Society, there are 9,300 solicitors who consider themselves to be PI specialists, and I believe that APIL's membership numbers about 5,000.

There are 'lies, damned lies and statistics' but on the basis of the above it might be logical to conclude that, statistically, the majority of PI lawyers are in favour of fixed fees.

The purpose of this letter is not to score a cheap point, or to damage the FOIL-APIL relationship in any way.

However, in the interests of accuracy I draw attention to the fact that FOIL's stance, in favour of fixed fees, is very much in line with the majority of the wide cross section of 'movers and shakers' consulted by the Civil Justice Council at its costs forum last year.

This discussion could rumble on.

Instead of using our time in that way let us all work together, with the Civil Justice Council, to find a way out of the 'mess' (President of the Law Society) or 'disaster area' (Professor Michael Zander) to mention but two descriptions of this ill-fated costs regime.

Tim Wallis, President of the Forum of Insurance Lawyers