Stephen Trahair is a tad unfair to Lord Justice Jackson and his attempt to deal with the costs issue.

Two factors are in play: 1. Reconstructing events and arguing over them with indemnity-insured trained legal representation costs money;2. All any solicitor should want is to be paid properly for what they have done, not half or a quarter – and not twice as much.There is nothing wrong with destroying conditional fee agreements with large success fees. They can be unfair to the paying party who has lost his case, not someone else’s as well.

Case funders will only insure a case if there is a good chance of winning.

That ‘risk assessment’ was or should have been a fundamental part of any litigator’s consideration of their client’s case, whether under a legal aid system that covered most people, under CFAs, or in a costs regime with no CFAs.

The costs assessment system, rough and ready as it is, should be left alone. The real saving to be made in the cost of litigation is in active case management in a costs-neutral environment. Someone needs to tell litigants sooner rather than later whether they are likely to win. The family jurisdiction has embraced this, so why not the rest of us?

Andrew Cohen, Woking, Surrey