Report comment

I am a litigator and unlike most commenters here I think there is a strong case for capping costs whether by fixed costs or some other means. It cannot be right that other than the very rich most people cannot afford to use the courts. Even if they can afford their own costs they must contend with the risk of paying the other side's astronomical costs if they lose.

At the moment there is an unacknowledged dual system of costs: one which the client pays their advisor and the other which is recovered. The first is subject to haggling, negotiations, discounts and write offs, while the other is recovered down to the last staple 'subject to detailed assessment'. A good starting point would be to acknowledge this from the costs budget stage through to the final assessment including every summary assessment.

It is wrong that lawyers should be allowed to charge at the recovery stage a higher level than what they could realistically be expected their client to pay. I say 'realistically' and not what the client is technically obliged to pay which is how the system currently works.