*/
THE Bar Council has submitted its response to the Ministry of Justice’s consultation on Damages Based Agreements (DBAs). Costs specialist barrister Nick Bacon has led the Bar's response on the principle of permitting DBAs, particularly their use in contentious business. The Bar Council is strongly of the view that any further consideration of this fundamental question should at least await the findings of the Jackson Review, due to report later this year, and that their introduction via the Coroners and Justice Bill should be halted until this significant issue has been considered by Lord Justice Jackson.
The Bar Council is concerned that the Government proposes to place contingency fees on a statutory footing, via an amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill, currently progressing through the Houses of Parliament. While the Bar Council readily accepts that in those areas where contingency fees are currently permitted (non-contentious business undertaken by solicitors), regulation to fulfil legitimate consumer protection concerns is justified, and notes the observation in Lord Justice Jackson’s Preliminary Report (published on 18 May 2009) that the unregulated use of “contingency fee” agreements in Employment Tribunals jurisdiction is open to abuse, it remains of the opinion that such a central issue should be subject to proper examination and consultation.
Commenting on the consultation, Nick Bacon said: “The Bar Council urges the Government to abandon its attempt to place contingency fees on a statutory footing pending full consultation. What is being proposed in the Coroners and Justice Bill as currently formulated is a wholesale reversal of the law against contingency fees. It is astonishing that such a fundamental shift in policy should not be preceded by wide and open public debate and consultation. The Bar Council is unable at this juncture to express a definitive view as to whether its membership would or would not support the abolition or even relaxation of the prohibition against the use of contingency fees in contentious and non-contentious business in the future. It can only be following a comprehensive consultation and public debate that a question so fundamental as this can be answered.”
The Bar Council is concerned that the Government proposes to place contingency fees on a statutory footing, via an amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill, currently progressing through the Houses of Parliament. While the Bar Council readily accepts that in those areas where contingency fees are currently permitted (non-contentious business undertaken by solicitors), regulation to fulfil legitimate consumer protection concerns is justified, and notes the observation in Lord Justice Jackson’s Preliminary Report (published on 18 May 2009) that the unregulated use of “contingency fee” agreements in Employment Tribunals jurisdiction is open to abuse, it remains of the opinion that such a central issue should be subject to proper examination and consultation.
Commenting on the consultation, Nick Bacon said: “The Bar Council urges the Government to abandon its attempt to place contingency fees on a statutory footing pending full consultation. What is being proposed in the Coroners and Justice Bill as currently formulated is a wholesale reversal of the law against contingency fees. It is astonishing that such a fundamental shift in policy should not be preceded by wide and open public debate and consultation. The Bar Council is unable at this juncture to express a definitive view as to whether its membership would or would not support the abolition or even relaxation of the prohibition against the use of contingency fees in contentious and non-contentious business in the future. It can only be following a comprehensive consultation and public debate that a question so fundamental as this can be answered.”
THE Bar Council has submitted its response to the Ministry of Justice’s consultation on Damages Based Agreements (DBAs). Costs specialist barrister Nick Bacon has led the Bar's response on the principle of permitting DBAs, particularly their use in contentious business. The Bar Council is strongly of the view that any further consideration of this fundamental question should at least await the findings of the Jackson Review, due to report later this year, and that their introduction via the Coroners and Justice Bill should be halted until this significant issue has been considered by Lord Justice Jackson.
The Bar Council faces both opportunities and challenges on our key areas this year
Exclusive Q&A with Henry Dannell
Casey Randall of AlphaBiolabs discusses the benefits of Non-invasive Prenatal Paternity testing for the timely resolution of family disputes
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Have you considered being a barrister in the British Army? Here’s an insight into a career in Army Legal Services
Rachel Davenport, Co-founder and Director at AlphaBiolabs, discusses the role that drug, alcohol and DNA testing can play in non-court dispute resolution (NCDR)
Senior barristers reflect on the progress made since the publication of Race at the Bar: A Snapshot Report in 2021, as well as the persistent challenges and cultural shifts still needed. Interviews by Mariam Diaby
‘Hard work and commitment can open doors. I believe that I am proof of that,’ says Senior Treasury Counsel Louise Oakley. She tells Anthony Inglese CB about her journey from Wolverhampton to the Old Bailey
What's it like being a legal trainee at the Crown Prosecution Service? Amy describes what drew her to the role, the skills required and a typical day in the life
Barbara Mills KC wants to raise the profile of the family Bar. She also wants to improve wellbeing and enhance equality, diversity and inclusion in the profession. She talks to Joshua Rozenberg KC (hon) about her plans for the year ahead
The winning essay is ‘A fiction of defendant participation: Single Justice Procedure offences should be moved to the civil jurisdiction’ by Hal McNulty