Solicitors fret over costs

WOOLF NETWORK QUESTIONNAIRE: 70% are concerned about front-loading in cases

The Civil Procedure Rules continue to work in general but solicitors remain concerned about conditional fee agreements (CFAs), judicial inconsistency and front-loading of costs, according to the Law Society's fifth Woolf network questionnaire.

Of the 100 solicitors who responded to the survey, 92 said the Woolf reforms are now working well overall.

But costs recovery is one thorny, outstanding issue.

Front-loading was one cause: 70% of respondents said they had difficulties in justifying costs incurred because of front-loading in cases where early settlement is reached.

One respondent described - in relation to costs - being 'challenged in nearly every case on broad basis without reasons'.

However, 66% of respondents said the benefits of early settlement outweighed these problems.

This issue could also be resolved in part by the agreement reached last month for fixed fees in road traffic accident cases which settle pre-issue for less than 10,000.

Another problem area was CFAs.

Three-quarters of respondents said these were not working.

Dispute as to the level of recoverability on CFAs, resulting from the spate of judicial decisions in the last year, was widely cited as one of the main problems.

Solicitors were also concerned about their treatment in court, with 65% complaining of judicial inconsistency under the Woolf regime, on issues such as assessment of costs, sanctions, and joint experts.

However, disclosure is working well: two-thirds of respondents said pre-action disclosure provisions were working, and a resounding 94% maintained that disclosure provisions during proceedings are accomplishing their goal.

A Law Society spokesman said: 'This survey is consistent with earlier research indicating that although the Woolf reforms have generally been beneficial, some issues still need to be tackled.

In particular, more work is needed to ensure that judges in different areas take a consistent approach to the new rules about proportionality and the assessment of costs.'

Jeremy Fleming