setting it straight

In a recent article 'Conditional fee agreement provisions' some information provided was, in my view, incorrect (see [2000] Gazette, 27 July, 44).

I refer to the statement that: 'Where a solicitor is not acting under a CFA but seeks to recover an insurance premium, the court is to compare the cost of that premium with a comparable premium if he were acting under a CFA'.

Practice directive 11.10 (July 2000) clearly states that the comparison to be taken into consideration when determining whether a premium is reasonable is: the comparable cost of insurance cover that is not in support of a CFA as against the costs of the success fee and supporting insurance payable with a CFA.

This point has been raised by a number of firms and they have all been referred to the practice directive.

It is my experience that many firms are currently reviewing the use of CFAs.

Frankly, these firms have become aware that there is a better way that also avoids the potential for conflict of interest if a part 36 defendant's offer is received.

This especially applies when the success fee and CFA-related premium will almost always be substantially greater than the LawAssist type premium.

Why should those who advise defendants simply not object to the recovery of a success fee and CFA-related premium when the much less expensive major alternative for insuring and funding civil cases has not been used?

Bob Gordon, director, Greystoke Legal Services Ltd