Report comment

Proportionality as a concept goes against access to justice does it not? If reasonable costs are then arbitrarily slashed thus creating a net debt owed to a claimant's solicitors that erodes any compensation, why bother?

Next will be proportionate costs being incurred but a plethora of judgments criticising solicitors for insufficiently prepared cases, or negligence claims because solicitors have not done enough work.

I wonder what changes to the standard client care letter could be made.

'Proportionate costs are those that are proportionate to the issues and the overall value of the claim. We do not know how proportionality will be assessed in your case and it may be that at the conclusion of your case that you owe us more in legal fees than your opponent will pay in legal costs together with your award.

To avoid or reduce the amount you may owe us we will be providing a "shoestring" service. This means we will do the bare minimum to hopefully ensure success. No liability will be accepted for any claim brought against us because of a failure to do more work that would incur charges over and above the potential value of your award.

If however you want a professional and proper standard of service we require you to agree to pay for the costs actually incurred notwithstanding that these may be higher than the total of the award and costs that your opponent will pay. You do have the opportunity to have your costs assessed by the court etc....'