Richard Moorhead is right to emphasise that, in contrast to the interpretation being put on his contingency fee studies by those who appear desperate for an alternative to the current costs system, contingency fees are not a solution (see [2008] Gazette, 11 December, 9).

It is reassuring that someone involved with the many current costs reviews, including the Jackson review, where his work has already been acknowledged, is taking a more realistic line in what is not a theoretical or academic area of the law but one that impacts on real people’s rights and compensation.

However, to say that the problems presented by contingency fees are more modest than many assume puts a gloss on the effect of contingency fees on access to justice.

Contingency fees can lead to extreme caution. Lower-value, and higher-risk, but important, cases will fall by the wayside unless they have trade union funding. And consumers, faced with real and stark choices between apparently similar offers, are unlikely to be well-equipped to distinguish between the various ways that lawyers will seek to make money out them. Contingency fees, unless very closely regulated, will not produce transparency in funding options.

Mr Moorhead’s UK study was conducted among employment practitioners who did mainly respondent work. Yet he appears to have taken the point that contingency fees are cheaper for opponents, while claimants get less damages. We look forward to his survey of claimants, due soon, which we hope will underline further this serious issue in respect of fairness and justice.

Helen Buczynsky Solicitor (Legal Officer), Legal Services, UNISON