*/
Referral fees lead to bad service and should not be permitted for barristers or other lawyers, while putting a limit on costs in advance is “neither necessary nor appropriate”, the Bar Council has said in its response to the Jackson review on the costs of civil litigation.
Claimants should continue to be able to recover 100 per cent of their damages award and should not see those damages reduced by unrecoverable but reasonably incurred costs, according to a Bar Council working group, chaired by Michael Todd QC, who led the response. The general rule that the loser pays the winner’s costs was “fair and effective”, the group concluded.
On case management, the group said there was no single approach that was appropriate and it was important instead to have a flexible system.
Lord Justice Jackson published his Preliminary Report on the costs of civil litigation in May, with a final report expected at the end of 2009. The Chairman of the Bar Council, Desmond Browne QC, said: “It is clear to me that whatever the future of conditional fee agreements, we need to be considering innovations in funding as well as adapting current funding models.”
Former Chairman of the Bar, Guy Mansfield QC’s discussion paper on whether a Contingency Legal Aid Fund (“CLAF”) could be established has also been published. He found CLAF to be a viable project, and that different approaches might suit different areas—defamation might benefit from a “boutique CLAF”, while personal injury and clinical negligence raised different issues
Lord Justice Jackson published his Preliminary Report on the costs of civil litigation in May, with a final report expected at the end of 2009. The Chairman of the Bar Council, Desmond Browne QC, said: “It is clear to me that whatever the future of conditional fee agreements, we need to be considering innovations in funding as well as adapting current funding models.”
Former Chairman of the Bar, Guy Mansfield QC’s discussion paper on whether a Contingency Legal Aid Fund (“CLAF”) could be established has also been published. He found CLAF to be a viable project, and that different approaches might suit different areas—defamation might benefit from a “boutique CLAF”, while personal injury and clinical negligence raised different issues
Referral fees lead to bad service and should not be permitted for barristers or other lawyers, while putting a limit on costs in advance is “neither necessary nor appropriate”, the Bar Council has said in its response to the Jackson review on the costs of civil litigation.
Claimants should continue to be able to recover 100 per cent of their damages award and should not see those damages reduced by unrecoverable but reasonably incurred costs, according to a Bar Council working group, chaired by Michael Todd QC, who led the response. The general rule that the loser pays the winner’s costs was “fair and effective”, the group concluded.
On case management, the group said there was no single approach that was appropriate and it was important instead to have a flexible system.
The Chair of the Bar reports back
By Kem Kemal, CEO, Henry Dannell
By BSK Financial Planning
Mário Barroso, Head of R&D and Method Development at AlphaBiolabs
Susie Griffin on the admin that keeps barristers from billable work
Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group, explains how global events can influence the performance of pensions and ISAs, and why taking a long-term approach to investing is often the most effective strategy
Kick off your career at the Bar Council’s Pupillage Fair this October – it’s one of the most valuable opportunities for aspiring barristers, says Amelia Clegg
Join us on Saturday 21 November 2026 at Leeds Beckett University and see for yourself why the North continues to be an exceptional place to build a career at the Bar
The golden age of advocacy? David Langwallner pays homage to the filmic if contentious barrister Sir Edward Carson and some of his contemporaries
Henry Fingerhut outlines what the Bar Standards Board AI guidance means for early career barristers
Not yet, says Jacob Turner. Regulation, unlike the technology itself, is a domain the legal profession can still control
