The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) have led to higher costs overall, which are disproportionate and front-loaded, a comprehensive study claimed this week.

Detailed interviews with circuit and district judges, court officials and solicitors in eight county courts, conducted by Nottingham Law School for the Department for Constitutional Affairs, also revealed that judges blame solicitors for significant 'legal costs inflation'.


However, the report concluded that the Woolf reforms had led to reduced delays, a better culture of litigation, and fewer cases reaching the courts.


The study found that the CPR have failed to address the issue of disproportionate costs, with judges finding costs in fast-track claims (worth £5,000 to £15,000) particularly high given the amounts at stake. Judges said they frequently found that solicitors had used 'fee-earners of too senior a grade' or had carried out 'excessive work'.


The report also found that the requirement for all costs to be evidenced had led to practitioners producing professionally drawn, detailed bills, and 'by ensuring that no activity is lost, the result is legal cost inflation'.


Interviewees acknowledged that there was a far greater level of co-operation between parties. The settlement rate was often more than 60%, and was as high as 80% in some of the courts studied, which was felt to be a result of the CPR.


Conflicts are now more likely to arise between solicitors and the bench rather than between lawyers themselves, according to the study. Solicitors complained that judges could be 'obstructive' at case management conferences, with the courts intervening too much.


Solicitors were critical of the ability of judges, with some claiming they 'haven't a clue' what they are doing. Most said the system of generalist judges does not work, and would prefer to see specialist judges.


Judges meanwhile complained of being 'hugely burdened' by 'oppressive' paperwork that made it difficult to control litigation. They cited lack of reading time as a key problem that was causing 'creaking and groaning' in the system.


The report also found that judges were still reluctant to order mediation, because of a lack of facilities and resources, and 'confusion about the appropriate timing'.


Anthony Maton, executive committee member of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, said: 'Costs are certainly front-loaded, but I do not agree that the CPR has increased costs overall. It has shifted the burden on when costs are payable. More disclosure at an earlier stage means issues are more closely defined, and if it gets to trial, the process is more streamlined, so there is a cost saving at that stage.


'There is a dichotomy between the judicial view of costs and the solicitors' view. I wonder whether that comes not from reality, but from a general perception by judges that costs are too high.'


Simon Davis, Law Society Council member and a member of the civil litigation committee, added: 'The CPR is working well in that cases are being heard more quickly, there is more co-operation between parties, and the part 36 offer process is also working. But there is a consensus that costs have become more expensive and front-loaded. The message is that reform does not necessarily mean cost savings.'