Tail wags dog: contingency fees (and Part 36 and third party funding)

Peysner, John (2013) Tail wags dog: contingency fees (and Part 36 and third party funding). Civil Justice Quarterly, 32 (2). pp. 1-6. ISSN 0261-9261

Eprint 9755 Peysner.pdf
Digitised for REF
[img] PDF
Civil.pdf - Whole Document
Restricted to Repository staff only

[img] PDF
Eprint 9755 Peysner.pdf - Whole Document
Restricted to Repository staff only

Item Type:Article
Item Status:Live Archive


*C.J.Q. 231 In 2000 I published an article calling for contingency fees to be introduced in litigation. It would be fair to say that this proposal did not meet with great enthusiasm. This was not really surprising as there has long been a dislike of contingency fees within litigation, particularly among the judiciary, based on the belief that they would subvert the relationship between lawyer and client and introduce incentives for bad behaviour amongst lawyers. My critique of this position and empirical evidence indicating that the problem was overstated1 was not sufficient against a general sense of unease about their use.
What role might contingency fees have offered in 2000? At that time the prospects for access to justice for individual citizens, often in personal injury cases, were looking increasingly bleak. Costs were high and unpredictable. Entitlement to legal aid was reducing. Some other system was needed to prevent vindication of rights by individuals becoming purely theoretical.

Keywords:Damages-based agreements, Funding arrangements, Indemnity principle, Part 36 offers, Personal injury claims, Digitised
Subjects:M Law > M200 Law by Topic
Divisions:College of Social Science > Lincoln Law School
ID Code:9755
Deposited On:06 Jun 2013 11:43

Repository Staff Only: item control page