... and justice for all
Series: Building ; 266(8196) 10 August 2001, 41(1)Publication details: 2001Subject(s): Summary: Briefly examines the implications of introducing conditional fees into the civil justice system. Government is considering introducing US-type contingency fees after the Woolf reforms failed to address legal costs. Looks at the difference between the US, where each party pays its own legal costs, and Britain, where the losing party pays the winner's costs. Should contingency fees be introduced, the UK will have to abandon this rule of the loser paying the winner's costs; lawyers may also be accused of inflating damages claims as they would have a direct financial interest in the outcome of the litigation; contingency fees may also provoke conflicts of interest between the lawyer and the client. Article considers that contingency fees would provide greater choice and access to justice for clients.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS64410 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 114423-1001 |
Briefly examines the implications of introducing conditional fees into the civil justice system. Government is considering introducing US-type contingency fees after the Woolf reforms failed to address legal costs. Looks at the difference between the US, where each party pays its own legal costs, and Britain, where the losing party pays the winner's costs. Should contingency fees be introduced, the UK will have to abandon this rule of the loser paying the winner's costs; lawyers may also be accused of inflating damages claims as they would have a direct financial interest in the outcome of the litigation; contingency fees may also provoke conflicts of interest between the lawyer and the client. Article considers that contingency fees would provide greater choice and access to justice for clients.