Report comment

Mr Cooper is of course entitled to his opinion, but might consider being a little more respectful of those of others also. I am a litigator of almost 20 years experience who regularly acts in insolvency litigation, as much or more so for 'Claire the hairdresser' as for IPs and other stakeholders. In this time, I have inevitably come across the IP stereotype Mr Cooper seeks to lampoon but I am bound to say that these are mainly now retired, in my experience.

Today's IPs tend to be employed or fixed share partners rather than owners, on a modest salary and more focused on navigating the massive level of regulation which applies to them than self-interest. Those who I have worked with in recent years have seemed to me to be interested above all else in preserving the core business and safeguarding returns to creditors (many of whom at an institutional level now take a real interest in capping fees). They still get a terrible press but the evidence of their contribution to the UK economy is undeniable.

Mr Cooper's comments go well beyond the LASPO exemption of course, and he should note that we now have a new system for IP remuneration in force and awaiting imminent guidance so his comments there are likewise out of date. But getting back to the issue, we are talking about whether it is right that IPs have the facility to recover success fee and premium if (rarely) they can. In my experience this possibility does not oppress my individual clients. Rarely are the aware of it until I advise them of their options, and what it then achieves is to focus their minds on the desirability of early settlement, which of course ultimately saves the court time. If they have no case to answer, it is reassuring for them to know that the prospective claimant is an officer of the court who is suitably insured and will drop a bad case, as opposed to a creditor assignee or someone else not bound by the same constraints of action, who must fight their corner tooth and nail for damages or they won't be able to cover their costs. QFor my creditor clients, the recoverability operates as a lifeline without which their dividend prospects would invariably be nil and/or their perception of the ability of the legal system to bring bad behaviour to book enhanced.

As for the rather sweeping assertion that the criminal law is the answer to 'rogue directors' (which I do not regard at all as an emotive term (whereas some of Mr Cooper's clearly are) with respect I find this simply naive. I have acted for many a director accused of breach of duty; it is not the prospect of a seriously unlikely prosecution for Insolvency Act offences by an under resourced Insolvency Service which prompts them to make reparation to creditors, it is the prospect if they do not do so of large bills and of losing their (sometimes) ill gotten gains and even their houses or their ability to trade.

In summary, the sport of IP bashing, which I have long found rather disingenuous for legal professionals who so often charge on a similar basis, should in my view be consigned to the waste paper basket. By all means look out for the bad apples and highlight them; reputable IPs welcome this. But tarring them all with the same brush, when there is so much they can do to help our clients and to minimise personal liabilities is counter-productive.