Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Printer Friendly Version
In the fourth instalment of our series on how the Jackson reforms have affected different parts of the profession, we now hear from the Remuneration Committee of the Bar Council.
Previously we have heard how the Jackson reforms have affected solicitors, barristers and costs lawyers in the last year.
We are always interested in hearing your views and thoughts – please do let us know whether you agree, or have a different perspective.
Following Lord Jackson’s review of civil legal costs, new measures were brought into force on 1 April 2013. On the first anniversary of the reforms, the Remuneration Committee of the Bar Council explains how litigation has changed under the Jackson regime.
The most significant impact to date arises out of the decision of Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd  EWCA Civ 1537,  All ER (D) 314 (Nov). Anecdotal evidence suggests the courts are grappling with a heavy increase in applications for relief from sanctions which, but for Mitchell, would not have been required pre-Jackson. Solicitors are facing dilemmas of their own, not only when they themselves miss a deadline by just a few days (or even a few hours), but also as to whether to oppose applications for relief brought by the other party to the proceedings. There is a concern that if applications for relief are not opposed then solicitors may be criticised by their own clients in taking advantage of Mitchell and the opponent’s default.
Conflicting approaches at first instance leads to uncertainty and fuels what is bound to be a turbulent period whilst the shock wave of the Court of Appeal’s judgment ripples across the litigation scene. While it may feel more like a tsunami than a ‘ripple’, the likelihood is that over the next year or two, the wave will have petered out. Mitchell brings with it a new and required discipline to the litigation scene which it might be said is long overdue. The test of ‘triviality’ and ‘good reason’ provide the platform for the new approach and while these criteria are unlikely in themselves to be considered controversial, their application may. It is vital the courts maintain consistency in approach.
The new budgeting rules have also affected court life. In the vast majority of cases, courts are now required to budget the costs of the proceedings to trial. This is a new skill and discipline that judges and lawyers are still learning to grapple with. Anecdotal evidence suggests the budgeting process can add cost to the process and cause longer case management hearings than was the case pre-Jackson. However, it may be it will take another two to three years to get a real feel as to the overall contribution that budgeting has made to the post Jackson litigation scene.
While it is still early-days, the Bar Council has launched a major research project to better understand the impact of the Jackson reforms (and other reforms implemented by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO 2012)) one year after implementation. A critical part of this project is a survey of the Bar, clerks, practice managers and costs lawyers. This survey will help ensure the Bar Council has evidence to better understand and explain trends that are currently only anecdotal. The survey is open from 1 to 22 April 2014.
Barristers who were conducting cases pursuant to conditional fee agreements (CFAs) pre-Jackson face particular challenges as to the recovery of success fees in post-Jackson instruction CFA cases. This includes cases where:
It is unsatisfactory that the Bar should be faced with this uncertainty. It is also unfair barristers may be deprived of success fees in cases which they only agreed to take on the proviso that a success fee would be recoverable.
It is vital the damages-based agreements (DBAs) legislation is reviewed immediately with a view to ensuring DBAs are available and workable forms of alternative funding for the Bar. At present the uncertainty created by the language and stipulations within the regulations is such that the take up of DBAs is believed to be almost non-existent. This is unacceptable in circumstances where the DBA regime was intended to fill a gap in funding and provide a workable solution to the abolition of the recoverability of success fees in CFA funded cases.
There will continue to be a spike of relief from sanction skirmishes and an increase in casualties falling foul of time deadlines. More Court of Appeal guidance is also likely to be required on the application of Mitchell. However, as the system settles down, a greater emphasis on agreements between the parties as to timetabling is likely to prevail over satellite disputes. Judges and lawyers will become more familiar with the principles behind budgeting that will shorten the process and enhance its impact on cases.
The views expressed by our Legal Analysis interviewees are not necessarily those of the proprietor.
First published on Lexis®PSL Dispute Resolution on 1 April 2014. Click here for a free one week trial of Lexis®PSL.
0330 161 1234