Report comment

I see some very good comments here, for both side. Some display a dislike to the fee challenges, others on the opposite side of the spectrum.

Claimant solicitors are becoming a little more educated in costs due to these challenges. Prior to these cases, clueless may be harsh, but it appears to be the case.

I think (probably incorrect) that the legislature thought that solicitors would receive 25% of relevant damages hence QOCS. Recent cases have highlighted the need for a risk assessment instead of a blanket 100% S/F and advising the clients of S74(3).

Whilst extremely daunting and will not happen- perhaps the fee-earner should provide an explanation as to how the funding mechanism was explained to the client. It is all good and well (like we are doing now) when experts dissect the rules when in truth many people on here with hand on heart would not be able to explain it correctly.

I take no side in this other than if the solicitor is incorrect, the mistake should be rectified. If they are correct then in the words of Doris Day que sera sera.