Postcard from Chicago

This blog is a first. In contrast to my usual musings, which are penned at various places in the UK, this one comes all the way from Chicago, Illinois. And no, before anyone tells me that I must be a workaholic, I'm not here on holiday.

I'm here as an attendee of the American Association of Justice (AAJ) annual convention, which is being held at the Chicago Hilton. The AAJ has been going for over 65 years, and previously  known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA). Its purpose is to support plaintiff lawyers of all guises, making for (as its website puts it) "a collective voice of the trial bar on Capitol Hill and in courthouses across the nation".

The AAJ's annual conference is attended by trial lawyers of every hue. There are seminars for trucking litigation lawyers, for those specialising in chiropractic malpractice litigation, birth trauma litigation and various kinds of pharmaceutical litigation. There all manner of other lectures and talks, all of which enable the open exchange of information and cutting edge know-how. I felt it was important to get a sense of how American lawyers deal with the kinds of issue that Spencers Solicitors handle, and so booked myself in for the four day conference.

The experience has been illuminating and when time allows I may write in more detail about it. For now, though, I will observe that two truisms seem to apply to the legal world on both sides of the atlantic.

Firstly, claimant lawyers are engaged in an adversarial battle with insurers. The latter subject to a minority exceptions seem to seek to minimise their liability at every stage, rather than remembering that without the people who take out their policies they wouldn't be in business. If only, as I have often argued in this blog, there could be a more constructive dialogue between insurers and claimant lawyers - if only a more holistic approach could be taken to the question of a victim's right to compensation - much time, cost and anxiety would be saved.

Secondly, claimant lawyers here and in America seem to be up against a legislative drive to reduce or cap the costs they can recover. While there may be merit in this in some ways, it cannot be right if the effect is to jeopardise a victim's ability to secure compensation to which he or she is rightfully entitled.

A final, more tangential observation is that it's true: American lawyers really are more theatrical than their British counterparts. They certainly don't lack for confidence and character. Last night, for example, my daughter Esme (who is accompanying me on the trip) booked us into Buddy Guy's Legends club. This is one of the most famous blues clubs in the world, and we had a fantastic evening watching brilliant musicians like Eric 'Guitar' Davis and Corey Dennison. As the evening wended on I found myself talking to a chap at our  table. He was confident and charismatic - and turned out to be an appeal judge from North Carolina.

Somehow, one doesn't seem to meet Court of Appeal judges in Ronnie Scott's club in the heart of the West End. That's not to say they don't like jazz - in fact, I suspect quite a few of them do - but it is to say that they'd be hesitant about striking up a conversation with a complete stranger. Not so in America, and tonight Esme is taking me to another blues club. I'll be surprised if any lawyers who happen to be there are backward about coming forward.

Britain’s dock workers shouldn’t have to rely on a Brando figure

Of all manual labour jobs, working in a dockyard might be the hardest. I say this because a friend once spent a summer working in Exmouth docks in Devon. He was exhausted by the end of every day. Sometimes his hands and wrists were cut by what he was unloading – he especially he hated fertiliser bags. But there was no alternative; my friend couldn’t just stop and invoke health and safety legislation. It was a case of either getting on with whatever he had to do, without complaint, or losing his job.

That was some 25 years ago. Society has come a long way since, and Britain stands proud as having the best health and safety at work record in Europe. Employers no longer resent provisions in legislation such as the Healthy and Safety at Work Act 1974. The majority now accept that they have a duty of care to look after, as far as possible, their employees’ health, safety and welfare while they are at work. For all that the tabloids sometimes assert that this means that it’s impossible to change a light bulb without performing a risk assessment, there’s an undeniable upside: our working environments are, for the most part, safe places to be.

It’s with some concern, then, that I read about proposals by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to axe rules which are specific to dockyards. There is more about this on the website of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers. In a nutshell, the HSE proposes that regulations which are specific to dockyards, such as ensuring ladders are in place as a means of escape if workers fall into the water, are to be scrapped and replaced with ‘guidance’.

The measure is in keeping with the present government’s obsession with cutting red tape. I object to red tape as much as the next man – if it’s unnecessary and counter-productive. But I’m very worried when I see ‘red tape’ being cut in a dangerous working environment like a dockyard. The words of APIL president Karl Tonks are salutary: “Five times more dock workers die than the national average for workplace deaths so the last thing the port industry needs is weaker safety measures.”

It’s impossible not to agree. Working in a dockyard is tough enough without stripping workers of much-needed health and safety protection. As ever, what is required is a full and considered appraisal of existing rules and regulations and a holistic approach to whether they work or not. I very much doubt that this has been undertaken; once again, it seems as if the government is looking for sound bites in the tabloids rather than properly assessing a given situation.

In 1954, years before my friend had his summer stint in Exmouth docks, Elia Kazan’s On The Waterfront was released. The film chronicled corruption in New Jersey’s dockyards, with former boxer Marlon Brando famously taking on the mob boss, and winning. Great though it is, On The Waterfront depicts a lost era, one in which health and safety at work was as fanciful as rain in a desert.

We’ve come a long way since. What we don’t want is our dock workers having to rely on a Brando figure to secure their rights. I urge a rethink of the HSE proposals and due consideration of whether their implementation might not ultimately have tragic consequences.

The White Paper on Social Care: we mustn’t let it turn into a missed opportunity

Recently I wrote about John Burns, whose battle to secure continuing healthcare in his own home gave me cause for considerable concern. For those who may not have seen my previous piece, Mr Burns suffered a tragic water sports accident which left him paralysed and without sensation from the neck down. But at the very time when he most needed the support and infrastructure of family life, he was forced, through lack of any alternative, to live in institutional care. Understandably, Mr Burns regarded this as akin to prison. He missed anniversary celebrations and seeing his sons grow up, and all the up and downs that make a family so special.

I was fortunate to hear Mr Burns speak at the AGM of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Spinal Cord Injury, held at Portcullis House. He brought his audience to the brink of tears as he so spoke so courageously. I left feeling profoundly moved, and determined to try to raise the profile of people in Mr Burns’ position.

With this in mind I applaud the publication of a white paper on the future of social care, published last week along with a draft social care Bill. As a press release from the Law Society has it, this amounts to “a rare opportunity to unify and modernise existing legislation which must not be wasted.” Law Society President Lucy Scott-Moncrieff  states: “Simplifying and unifying a mass of existing statute is an arduous and complex exercise.  The aim must be to improve the experience of those requiring care.”

The publication of the white paper comes against a backdrop of reduced spending on social care, a society whose citizens are living longer and a need for clarity on how the system will be funded in future. But does it do enough to help seriously injured people?

I will be taking a look at both the white paper and the draft Bill in detail to find out, but one thing strikes me as dubious at the outset. It is envisaged that elderly people in need of care will be able to take out loans on the value of their homes, repayment of which will be deferred until their death. Therefore people will not be forced to sell their homes to obtain care, but is it right that the family inheritance is potentially eradicated in this fashion?

I don’t think it is. I believe that as a society we are guilty of failing to respect those in need of care properly, whether they are the elderly or those unfortunate enough to suffer a serious and debilitating injury. At present, costs are pushed back and forth between local authorities and the NHS – a problem the white paper seeks to deal with by proposing greater integration – but as a starting point surely we should be accepting that society has a duty to meet the costs of care? After all, those who need care have paid their taxes and, in all but a tiny minority of cases, they have contributed to the wellbeing of their communities and the economy of the nation. Why does government, past and present, assume the default position that it is the individual’s responsibility to pay for care?

I will return to this topic in the future but, for now, I am not convinced that those suffering catestrophic injury  would be impressed or relieved by the content of this white paper.  Let’s make sure it doesn’t end up being a missed opportunity. 

SCI People Deserve Better

Yesterday I found myself in the House of Lords. Specifically, I was in the Grimond Room at Portcullis House for the AGM of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Spinal Cord Injury. I attended as a guest, having been invited by the Motor Accident Solicitors’ Society.

I found the experience very moving – and not just because of the impressive surrounds of the House of Lords. Certainly, being in such a historical place is stirring in its own right, but what I found so poignant was the subject under discussion, and the testimony of Spinal Cord Injured (SCI) people.

The AGM’s purpose was to discuss the issues SCI people face when being assessed for NHS continued healthcare. It was chaired by Ian Lucas, the Labour MP for Wrexham, and among those speaking were Professor Luke Clements of Cardiff Law School, and John Burns, who is a tetraplegic.

Mr Lucas was a fine chair, and Professor Clements an erudite analyst on the legal issues surrounding the provision of continued healthcare to SCI people. But what moved me so much was the story of Mr Burns, whose battle to secure continuing healthcare in his own home was shocking and dismaying in equal measure.

It strikes me as appalling that SCI people have to overcome such barriers when applying for continuing healthcare from their local Primary Care Trusts. Why, in a civilised society such as Britain, is it so difficult for people whose quality of life is so dreadfully curtailed to obtain adequate care?

The leading authority in the area is the Coughlan case, a Court of Appeal decision from 1999. Pamela Coughlan was a disabled woman who was denied fully funded NHS care, having been told that she only needed general rather than specialist nursing. She went to law to argue that the NHS had wrongly passed the buck to social services, and she won. In agreeing with her, the Court of Appeal laid down a test to determine whether the NHS is responsible for funding, as follows: 

• If the person’s reason for placement in a home was primarily a health need, then the NHS is responsible for funding the whole package;
• Local social services are only responsible for care which is “merely incidental or ancillary to the provision of the accommodation”.

Regrettably, the Coughlan criteria have not been universally adopted – the Department of Health left it to individual health authorities and Primary Care Trusts to decide each case on its own merits, which led to considerable divergence in practice around the country. In turn, this has led to palpable injustice and a great many misconceptions, not least the widespread beliefs that once a person is not in hospital, they have to pay for their care, and that care outside hospital is social (or personal) care. A related myth is that people in residential or nursing homes automatically have to pay for their care.


Professor Clements debunked these ideas, citing the Coughlan criteria to show that they are not legally correct. That he did so made Mr Burns’ tale all the more moving. This is a man whose circumstances are heart-rending and far from unique. He was forced, through lack of any alternative, to live in institutional care – which understandably he regarded as akin to prison. He missed family life, the benefits of which so many of us take for granted. Mr Burns missed anniversary celebrations and seeing his sons grow up, and all at a time when he was in most need of family support. 


Throughout, he had to try to come to terms with a tragic water sports accident which had left him paralysed and without sensation from the neck down. He brought himself, his wife and his audience to the brink of tears as he so spoke so courageously.


I’m glad I was able to attend yesterday’s AGM. In some ways, it was depressing – the neglect of SCI people and the systemic failure to provide properly for their needs is terrible – and yet I emerged feeling inspired by Mr Burns’ courage. I hope that other people will join me in pressing for a higher standard of care in this area. As a society, we can and must do better.

It’s time for a holistic approach to NHS Trusts and PI advertising

Last week Andrew Bridgen, the Tory MP for North West Leicestershire, put down an early day motion attacking the prevalence of advertisements for personal injury lawyers in hospital waiting rooms.

“The Prime Minister talks about slaying the ‘health and safety monster’, but we’re feeding the monster and it’s going to get bigger,” said Bridgen. His comments were echoed by Simon Burns, the Health Minister, who told The Times he would be writing to Sir David Nicholson, chief executive of the NHS, about the ads. As Burns put it: “Patients should be able to focus on getting better, without having to be hounded by lawyers or adverts displayed in A&E departments. I will ask David Nicholson to write to hospitals to remind them it is not acceptable to display these adverts.”

Years ago, when I was a young solicitor, I recall another lawyer who took a robust view of advertising his firm’s services in hospitals. He was in the habit of visiting hospitals and not merely advertising his services, but removing any ads which promoted rivals. Back then, his conduct, unblushing as it was, seemed almost amusing, but times have changed. Our personal injury system has mutated into one which is rife with ingrained failure, not least when it comes to hospital ads for PI lawyers.

In fact, Department of Health guidelines prohibit the advertising of PI services in hospitals. A number of NHS trusts routinely ignore the ban, for a simple financial incentive: they may be paid up to £85,000 a year to feature the ads, or given donations of equipment and uniforms. In the cash-strapped years of the early 21st century, the trusts’ willingness to continue advertising lawyers’ services and the availability of no win, no fee claims is understandable, but their concomitant bargain with the devil is not so palatable: the firms advertising promise not to sue hospitals which carry their adverts. Instead, the tacit, or perhaps even express, understanding is that firms will seek compensation from anyone else in the chain of liability. This, in turn, can only feed the perceived compensation culture.

The Solicitors’ Code of Conduct contains provisions as to what law firms can and can’t advertise. Naturally, those firms who continue to target hospitals will comply with the Code. However, by way of a radical alternative, consider the situation in at one stage in Australia: there, advertisements for PI work were banned per se.

Here, it seems once again that the momentum which seeks to reduce the excesses of the PI market is in danger of not being fully thought out. Messrs Bridgen and Burns may (laudably enough) lament practices among various NHS trusts and seek to change them, but have they considered the impact of the Alternative Business Structure (ABS) regime in this sector? It’s all well and good to end the practice of lawyers advertising PI services in hospitals, but what is to stop a claims management company, set up under an ABS to employ PI lawyers, from doing exactly the same thing?

I welcome a ban of hospital advertising for PI claims, but unless it is approached in an intelligent, holistic manner, loopholes will remain.

Accident victims should be entitled to instruct the solicitor of their choice

Picture the scene. You’ve been injured a mile from your house in a road accident. Fortunately, your injury isn’t life-threatening. However, it’s still painful and upsetting – perhaps a broken leg, or a badly damaged arm. The accident wasn’t your fault and, naturally enough, you’d like to make a claim for compensation. With a sigh of relief – for everyone knows that lawyers can cost a small fortune – you remember that your standard household policy also provides legal expenses insurance (LEI). Once back home, you dig out the policy and make a claim.

So far, so good. But then, a little later, you receive word from the insurance company that a firm of solicitors you’ve never heard of has been appointed to handle your claim. Worse, they’re at the other end of the country. They won’t be rushing down to see you to take instructions. If you want to go and see them, fine, but it’s hardly practical. You’ll have to accept that your relationship with them will be entirely over the phone and via correspondence.

You might not mind this, but many people do – especially if their accident isn’t straightforward. In such cases, local knowledge can be vital, but even if it isn’t the fact is that when people go through the trauma of an accident they often like to know the solicitor who handles their claim (or, at least, be able to get to know him or her). Their case, then, takes on a human dimension, rather than appearing as a statistic on a conveyor belt.

Regrettably, what ought to be a basic human right – to instruct the solicitor of one’s choice – is not as straightforward as it should be in Britain. A European Council directive (Directive 87/344, to be precise) provides that insurance contracts providing LEI should allow the insured a lawyer of their choice “from the moment that he has the right to claim from his insurer under the policy”. The Directive was tested in the European Court of Justice (ECJ) some two years ago, via the case of Austrian citizen Erhard Eschig (ECJ Case C-199/08). Eschig instructed the law firm Salpius Rechtsanwalts GmbH to represent him in several financial misselling claims. He sought confirmation from his insurer, Uniqa, that his legal costs would be met. Uniqa refused, stating that ‘mass claims’ (Eschig’s was one of many) would only be covered if handled by law firms on its panel.

Eschig complained. He challenged Uniqa, and the ECJ upheld his claim. It ruled that Uniqa’s purported limitation of the policy to mass claims was in breach of Directive 87/344.

As with so many European Directives, uncertainty as to their application in Britain prevails – irrespective of Mr Eschig’s claim. Here, the relevant law is contained in The Insurance Companies (Legal Expenses Insurance) Regulations 1990, which state:

6.—(1) Where under a legal expenses insurance contract recourse is had to a lawyer (or other person having such qualifications as may be necessary) to defend, represent or serve the interests of the insured in any inquiry or proceedings, the insured shall be free to choose that lawyer (or other person).

(2) The insured shall also be free to choose a lawyer (or other person having such qualifications as may be necessary) to serve his interests whenever a conflict of interests arises.

(3) The above rights shall be expressly recognised in the policy.

That seems crystal clear, but the practical reality is different. As many of us engaged in solicitor panel work know, insurers habitually work with panels of law firms, farming out work to their chosen panel where a key component in their choice is price. Claims will routinely be handled by lawyers who live and work miles from the victim’s abode or place where the accident occurred. Moreover, the Regulations stipulate that the freedom of choice arises in connection with “any inquiry or proceedings” – in other words, only when litigation is formally being contemplated. This is not in the spirit of Directive 87/344, which is not so restrictive.

The freedom of choice to instruct a solicitor is a basic human right. It’s a bit like supporting a football club. Some people may decry the fact that I choose to go and watch Chelsea (and after the home defeat by Aston Villa over the festive period, I lamented my decision, too) but no one can stop me from supporting the team of my choice. Similarly, no one should be able to prevent an accident victim instructing the solicitor with whom he or she feels most comfortable. If that’s the family firm, or the high street sole practitioner who’s been in the town for years, then so be it. The small print in LEI should have nothing to do with basic freedom of choice.

Change is in the air, but could we do more?

Here’s a story that I only wish was apocryphal. Regrettably, it’s not. In fact, it’s the sort of conversation that we've probably all encountered, at some stage or another.

A group of lawyers from a personal injury firm were out for a drink. They had just attended a conference on the Jackson Review and the myriad of impending changes to civil litigation, not least in the fraught arena of costs. One might expect them to be rather preoccupied, given the impact the changes will bring on their livelihoods.

Not a bit of it. The group was sanguine to a man, ready to take on whatever came their way. It might have been possible to construe this as evidence of an admirable ability to adapt to change, to roll with the dice and serve the law and their clients come what may, were it not for what animated their equanimity. Which was, as one of them put it: ‘Who cares how the system changes? We’ll still find a way to make our money.’

Far-fetched? Sadly not. This is how some in the legal profession think. They’re not interested in their clients; all they care about is making as much money as possible. And they don’t mind if they bend the rules along the way.

This kind of lawyer is not confined to the personal injury sector, but arguably seems even worse when met in this environment. The idea, for example, of victim auctions – of lawyers bidding among themselves to secure the highest value personal injury cases, not because they care about the victim but because they see him or her as a cash cow – is not only anathema to right-thinking members of the profession but also unpalatable to anyone with a sense of morality.

What, though, can be done about this sort of thing? Yes, we need to continue to press the government to consider the full gamut of issues in, for example, its proposed (and welcome) ban on referral fees, and yes, we need to continue to press for legislative change where necessary. But I wonder if there’s more that we could do.

Perhaps it is time to reassert the professional standards and duties that come with the territory of being a legal practitioner. These seem to be too often ignored by those in the personal injury market.  Maybe if like-minded, honourable individuals who are committed to rooting out malpractice formed an alliance, we could do something about the blatant profiteering and corrupt practices that blight our industry?

If a campaigning body was established, it could set about achieving the following:

• Deliver real market transparency – A significant portion of current industry practice deliberately confuses and dodges clarity. Consumers need to know the facts so that they can make decisions from a fully informed position.
• Reign in blatant profiteering – There is a duty to avoid profiteering in every walk of life and this includes personal injury claims. Claims should not be seen as an opportunity to make money without any meaningful contribution being made to the service provided.
• Stamp out conflicts of interest – Nothing must stand in the way of delivering in the interests of the client. Too much is currently done for the benefit of business and not the individual. This situation must cease.
• Commissions should be returned – The current merry-go-round of commissions must stop. Any money paid by a referring party should be returned to the individual.
• Ban referral fees in all their guises – Consumers should have a choice as to who they instruct. While a decision has been taken in principle to ban referral fees, we must campaign to ensure that legislation truly delivers its objective.

What do you think? Is there mileage in forming an alliance to tackle these challenges? Please post a comment here, or, if you prefer, send me your thoughts via e-mail at john.spencer@spencerssolicitors.com.

Back to the drawing board, please, with the MoJ’s Referral Fee Impact Assessment

So, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has published an Impact Assessment on the Referral Fees ban. Good news, for surely things must be proceeding apace?

Well, yes and no. Yes, ever since September’s announcement by the MoJ that referral fees in personal injury cases are to be banned many people, including me, have been pleased and optimistic that a clearly dysfunctional system is at last going to be reformed. But no, because – and not for the first time – there are grounds for fearing that to embark upon reform in haste is to repent at leisure.

Why do I say this? Not, I assure you, because I just happen to like banging the drum of measured and sensible reform, as opposed to what is increasingly coming to resemble an ill-conceived cacophony of scattergun percussion. I urge caution because of the nature of this particular Impact Assessment.

First, though, a refresher. Impact Assessments are relatively new to the government’s lexicon, arising from a rationale which states that estimates of the costs and benefits of policy options under consideration should normally form an integral part of consultation exercises. As the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill (LASPO) is pushed through, with its provision banning the receipt and payment of referral fees, it is therefore government policy that an Impact Assessment be undertaken. Bear in mind that an Impact Assessments is:

• a continuous process to help the policy-maker fully think through and understand the consequences of possible and actual Government interventions in the public, private and third sectors; and
• a tool to enable the Government to weigh and present the relevant evidence on the positive and negative effects of such interventions, including by reviewing the impact of policies after they have been implemented.

That sounds sensible, you will agree. It is shame, then, that this particular Impact Assessment is so scant on detail. Remarkably, it contains nothing on the mechanics of the implementation of the ban, other than that it is planned for autumn 2012. Here is all that there is on the crucial question of just how the ban will be achieved:

•  The reforms will be implemented through primary legislation. A provision in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill will be introduced to prohibit the payment and receipt of referral fees in personal injury cases. It is intended that the relevant regulators (the SRA, FSA, claims management regulator and others) will take the necessary steps to enforce the ban.

Indeed, the Impact Assessment expressly says that there is no data available for a ‘quantitative’ impact assessment. The data required for this is listed, but then described as unobtainable either because it cannot be tracked down, is unknown, commercially sensitive or not readily available. What’s more, a vast amount of the Impact Assessment is couched in conditional terms: look out for the frequency of the words ‘might’ and ‘may’ when it comes to the ramifications of the referral fee ban in practice.

One thing is said with clarity: that claimants could lose out as a result of the proposals.

To me, that alone should be enough to urge a rethink. We need to put the emphasis on helping people pursue genuine claims. Referral fees turn the industry into one in which money trumps merit, but how can it be right if, as a consequence of rushing through legislation, some people who have been seriously injured are unable to bring claims? The Government needs to remember the purpose of an Impact Assessment: to help the policy-maker fully think through and understand the consequences of legislation. Please, then, can we have some thought about how, exactly, to implement the ban? 

It’s not too late to stop the implementation of the LASPO Bill

This week, I attended a Consumer Justice Alliance event at the House of Commons hosted by Andy Slaughter MP. It had a simple aim: ‘to inform Parliamentarians of the importance of access to justice for all’.

Simple, yes. Perhaps you’re thinking that it sounds a little dry, too? Far from it. The two hours that I spent at the House of Commons yesterday proved to be a moving reminder of what’s at stake when we talk about access to justice. Why? Because for all that the law can be complex, even obscure and rarefied, underlying its machinations are human lives.

This became very clear as I listened, with admiration, to the stories of two women whose husbands had been the victims of negligence. The first lady spoke of how her husband’s treatment in hospital had rendered him wheelchair-bound and brain damaged.  This was a cast-iron case of clinical negligence, with complicated legal and evidential issues. The lady had managed to secure sufficient compensation to ensure that her husband’s life was made tolerable, at least. The second woman’s husband had contracted mesothelioma, a form of cancer  caused by exposure to asbestos. This had been a particularly difficult claim, but ultimately resulted in success, so that, again, the man’s life was made tolerable.

Both women spoke with great dignity and power. That is not, though, the only thing that they had in common. What also united them is that neither would have been able to see their loved ones obtain justice if they were subject to the regime proposed by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill (LASPO), which is currently making its way through parliament.

The LASPO Bill has been much criticised, and no wonder. Many civil litigation claimants are presently only able to bring claims thanks to the ‘no win, no fee’ system in this country. However, the coalition government is intent on pushing LASPO through, so that, among other changes, recoverability of success fees and after the event insurance (ATE) – without which the risk of bringing a claim is often for the most vulnerable claimant  too great - will not be possible.

The government’s reasoning lies in the drive to combat what is perceived as ‘litigation culture’. The justice secretary, Ken Clarke, says the measures are necessary because the “civil justice system has got out of kilter”, resulting in “spiralling legal costs, slow court processes [and] unnecessary litigation”. With respect to Mr Clarke, so broad a brush statement misses the point. Under the current system, the rule is that costs follow the event. Legal costs are borne by the losing party, and claimants take out ATE insurance to pay the defendant's costs if the claim fails. Lawyers manage the risk of bringing claims via success fees, which are payable when they win. The LASPO Bill will do away with this, introducing a new scheme known as ‘qualified one-way cost shifting’, under which defendants will bear their own legal costs whatever the outcome.

The Consumer Justice Alliance has made its opposition to LASPO clear. The reforms are also opposed by the Law Society, the Bar Council and a  number of the costs judges in the High Court. All argue that far from facilitating access to justice – the key driver for civil litigation reform in recent years, ever since the Woolf Report – LASPO will mean that ordinary people are unable to bring claims. With no ATE insurance, and costs being funded from damages, they could easily end up out of pocket, even when their claims are as meritorious as for  those I encountered in the House of Commons.

There is no doubt in my mind that the implementation of LASPO could have a profoundly detrimental effect on access to justice. It is to be hoped that the moving testimony of women such as those whose accounts  I was privileged to hear yesterday reaches a wider audience, and that the government reigns in measures that are so clearly inimical to the ordinary citizen’s ability to seek redress when wronged.