Report comment

My favourite part of this article is : "He also said practitioners’ experience of fixed fees in low-value claims – as well as in the IP Enterprise Court – has been ‘satisfactory’.

So the plan is to introduce a completely new system of fixed fees because similar one's we have are "satisfactory" - that's the benchmark is it ? The next time I go to a restaurant and receive satisfactory service and a satisfactory standard of cuisine, I'll be sure to rush back time and again.

Perhaps we ought to look at whether the “satisfactory” benchmark is satisfactory itself. “Satisfactory” may be a high enough standard for Sir Rupert (albeit his prior reforms don’t even hit the dizzy heights of “satisfactory”) but it isn’t usually enough for most. If I experience something satisfactory, I tend not to want to experience it again.

By way of further analogical criticism, if an electrician did such a bad job of re-wiring my house, they wouldn't be asked back to assist with repairs. So why then is Sir Rupert involved in this process ? Has he not caused enough damage ? Is he really best placed to decide on the future of the legal profession ? Is he the only LJ who is capable of illustrating his master-plans by way of eye-catching table ? Is he the one who is creative enough to invent such catchy names as "Precedent H" and "Table 6a" ? Or is it that he is the only one prepared to recommend a massive overhaul of fees based on the small consensus that similar schemes are deemed “ok” by a few people he knows ?

On a serious note, we surely must object to such huge changes when (a) they haven't been subject to real scrutiny (b) they risk impacting on access to justice (again, I know) (c) they will impact heavily on employment levels in the legal profession (and those closely or loosely associated therewith) and (d) they are being recommended by someone who has extremely low standards.

How are law firms who employ many thousands of people in this country supposed to make plans in their businesses with this on the horizon ? This latest in a long line of plans is clearly the result of Sir Rupert's prior failed plans (yes Precedent H, I'm referring to you). Yet he somehow he is a respected authority on the subject of legal costs and reforms !

I despair (but then I have been in a state of despair since Sir Ruperts whistle-stop tour around the country when clearly he had absolutely no intention of listening to any of the audiences unless they were saying what he was already planning).