Terminating retainers and transfer and variation of CFAs [Archived]
Produced in partnership with Sue Brown
Terminating retainers and transfer and variation of CFAs [Archived]

The following PI & Clinical Negligence practice note produced in partnership with Sue Brown provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • Terminating retainers and transfer and variation of CFAs [Archived]
  • Pre-LASPO CFAs
  • Termination of retainer
  • Entitlement of old firm to costs
  • Client termination
  • Death
  • Solicitors end agreement
  • Legal Ombudsman
  • Assignment of CFA
  • Compliance with CFA Regulations
  • More...

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. For how the conditional fee regime operates after the changes made by the section 44 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPOA 2012) came into force in relation to personal injury and clinical negligence, see Practice Notes: Conditional fee agreements after 1 April 2013 (personal injury and clinical negligence),Conditional fee agreements—definition and requirements, Types of conditional fee agreements,Conditional fee agreements—assignment of a CFA, and our sub-topic overviews: PI and clinical negligence developments—overviewFunding arrangements—overview.


The significant factor is that, under the current costs regime, a claimant proceeding under a pre-April 2013 conditional fee agreement (CFA) with pre-April 2013 after-the-event (ATE) insurance (pre-LASPO CFA) can recover the success fee and ATE premium from the defendant on the successful conclusion of the claim. The question of whether the old costs regime is incompatible with the paying party’s Article 6 Right (the right to a fair trial) under the European Convention of Human Rights was considered in the Supreme Court in Coventry v Lawrence. The Supreme Court, ruled that to order payment of a recoverable success fee and ATE insurance premium against the losing party did not breach Article 6.

The Supreme Court was asked to consider a similar issue in Times Newspapers Ltd v Flood, a group of defamation claims against three

Popular documents