Doubts on fixed costs study

PERSONAL INJURY: claimant and defence firms 'likely to produce self-serving data and undermine report'

Concerns are growing among claimant personal injury solicitors that research into fixed costs will prove to be a washout since they believe the methodology is fundamentally flawed and the government has already made its mind up on the matter.

Rachel Sarfas, case management director at national firm Thompsons, wrote to research head Professor John Peysner last week arguing that the project - which is looking into alternative costs models as a way of reducing the cost of litigation - was doomed because both insurers and claimant firms were likely to produce self-serving data.

She said that even if the results indicated that costs had risen, they would fail to address the issue of why this had happened.

Ms Sarfas also claimed that firms were being rushed into providing information at the expense of 'a thorough and objective analysis' because fixed costs were now a fait accompli.

She suggested that an objective source for files - such as the Compensation Recovery Unit - should be used.

'There must be transparent, thorough and objective research,' she wrote.

Prof Peysner is currently out of the country.

David Marshall, vice-president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, agreed that firms were struggling to meet the 31 October deadline for providing data.

Speaking after last week's meeting of the Civil Justice Council's consultative group on the issue, Mr Marshall said he could not understand why five sub-groups had been set up to investigate fixed-cost models when the results of the research had not yet supported the concept.

'People get the feeling that a decision to introduce all this has been made already,' he said.

'Because the models are being produced before the data, you can see why they have reached this conclusion.'

The Forum of Insurance Lawyers said asking parties from all sides to supply information was a valid way of investigating the matter, adding that it was 'disappointed but not surprised', that claimant solicitors were seeking to 'impugn the efforts of independent academics' from the beginning.

'We need to look for common ground to ensure that a predictable costs pilot has the best possible chances of success,' president Tim Wallis argued.

'The costs system is a mess and although this is not of lawyers' making, society deserves the very best contribution from its lawyers in sorting it out.'

Paula Rohan