» Note
The consultation paper “Access to Justice with Conditional Fees” was published on 4 March 1998. It set out the Government's plans for the long term reform of the legal aid system and sought views on the proposed first stage of that programme of reform: extending the availability of conditional fee agreements; removing legal aid from personal injury and a number of other types of proceedings and setting up a transitional fund to support some of the cases which would no longer receive legal aid. The consultation period closed on 30 April and 238 responses were received. A further 28 were received after the closing date. A list of those who submitted formal responses to the consultation paper is attached. Many other contributions to the consultation process have been received and they have all been carefully considered.
This paper sets out each of the questions asked in the consultation paper and then summarises the views given in the responses.
Copies of this summary and the consultation paper can be obtained by writing to:
Mrs Melissa Rippin
Lord Chancellor's Department
3rd Floor Selborne House
54/60 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6QW
Copies may also be requested by telephoning 0171-210-8774.
1. Are there any types of proceedings for which conditional fee agreements should not be allowed; and if so why would these not be suitable for conditional fee agreements?
There was general support for the proposal to extend the availability of conditional fee agreements. Where concerns were expressed, they were mostly about the practicalities of conditional fee agreements being used in particular circumstances rather than reasons for prohibiting them in particular types of proceedings. Concern was expressed about conditional fee agreements where monetary damages are not the primary objective, where risk is difficult to assess, where there are complex technical issues, and for child litigants and those with a mental disability. These are factors a solicitor would properly consider when deciding whether to undertake a particular case on a conditional fee basis, not reasons for prohibiting conditional fees at all. It was also suggested that the success fee should be regulated before conditional fees are extended more widely, and that conditional fees should not be available for employment tribunals, where costs are not recoverable. Another suggestion was that for conditional fee agreements for damages to be taken by next friends on behalf of minors or disabled people, there would have to be special court rules.
Defamation is the one type of proceedings for which particular arguments have been put forward against conditional fee agreements being permitted. The argument is that the burden of proof is upon the defendant in defamation proceedings where justification is pleaded and newspapers fear that conditional fee agreements would encourage people to litigate in the hope of a settlement, and that this would deter newspapers from reporting freely. However, for a defamation claim to be brought under a conditional fee agreement, a solicitor would have to be sufficiently convinced that there was a really strong case to answer before he would be prepared to run the risk of not being paid for costly litigation.
2. What types of monitoring or other research ought to be undertaken and over what period?
The general view among respondents was that further monitoring and research would be a good idea. Many thought there should be further research before legal aid was removed. There were suggestions for research and monitoring in every aspect of conditional fee agreements and their possible effects. These included:
3. What changes to the law might assist the development of conditional fees?
A number of respondents suggested changes to the law, in particular to make the success fee and insurance premium recoverable and to make the 25% cap on damages for the uplift statutory. Other suggestions included:
4. Should the success fee and any insurance premium be recoverable against the losing party?
Success fee
Making the success fee recoverable was generally supported by over three quarters of the respondents who commented. Many propose doing so before removing personal injury and the other proceedings suggested from the scope of legal aid. The general view was that successful plaintiffs should not have to pay the success fee out of their damages, but that the unsuccessful defendant who was the cause of the loss should.
It was commented that there would be practical matters to resolve, such as when the success fee should be recoverable and how the level could be challenged. Another comment was that while it would be preferable to make the success fee recoverable than to see successful plaintiffs deprived of part of their damages, it would be unfair to defendants that the greater their chances of success, the more genuinely arguable the case, and consequently the higher the uplift if they lose. One view was that payment of a success fee was a major disincentive to a plaintiff, and shifting these costs to the defendant might create a better balance in personal injury cases, albeit at the risk of encouraging lower quality law firms to stay in the market by allowing them to cross-subsidise cases.
Some respondents opposed the success fee being recoverable, on the grounds that it would encourage satellite litigation, or that it would remove risk from the plaintiff and his solicitor. Another view was that it should not be made recoverable as it is not a disbursement but a cross-subsidy. Most of the respondents in the finance industry were against the proposal to make the success fee recoverable, arguing that it would lead to a rise in insurance premiums not just for conditional fees insurance, but generally in household and motor insurance premiums. One respondent thought it might cause the level of success fees to rise, and might be used as a negotiating tactic. Another was concerned about early disclosure of the level of success fee giving the defendant an advantage. One insurer thought it would undermine the before the event legal expenses insurance market as the incentive to protect oneself in advance would be removed if after the event insurance avoids costs for the successful litigant.
There were also suggestions that there should be a sliding scale for the success fee, if it were made recoverable, dependent on the size of claim, and that the success fee should be dependent upon there being an attempt to resolve the dispute by alternative dispute resolution within three months of the claim.
Insurance premiums
Over two thirds of those who commented on it supported the proposal that the insurance premium should be recoverable.
There was a suggestion that if the conditional fee insurance premium were to be recoverable, then other forms of legal expenses insurance premium should be recoverable as well.
There was more support for the insurance premium being recoverable than for the success fee, although there was again concern that this might lead to an overall increase in insurance premiums. One respondent argued that if the premium was recoverable from unsuccessful defendants, it would be only fair for successful defendants to recover their premium from the unsuccessful plaintiff. Another that a plaintiff who takes out insurance is benefiting the defendant, because if the defendant wins, his costs are guaranteed; it is therefore only fair that if he loses, the defendant should reimburse the plaintiff. There was also a suggestion that the recovered insurance premium could be paid back into a legal aid fund which would pay the insurance premium in medical negligence cases.
There was much greater support among the respondents from the finance industry for the insurance premium in a conditional fee agreement case being recoverable than there was for the success fee, with just over half of respondents in this category supporting the proposal.
5. If the success fee was recoverable, when should a party disclose the success fee he has agreed with his lawyer?
Answers to this question varied, with suggestions for disclosure ranging from at the outset, to not until the time for appeal has elapsed. The main concern about disclosing the success fee before the case had concluded was that the level of success fee would indicate what the plaintiff's solicitor estimated the prospects of success to be. This is resolved with the suggestion that the fact of a conditional fee agreement should be disclosed at the outset, but the amount of the uplift only at judgment or at a genuine offer to settle. One comment was that disclosure should be no later than the exchange of witness statements, or within 21 days of a payment into court or a Calderbank offer, as a defendant who demonstrates a clear intention to negotiate settlement should know at that time what level of success fee has been agreed. Another view was that the benefits of focusing both sides on the prospect of litigation outweigh the detriment of disclosing the prospects of success.
6. What rights should the party liable to meet the success fee have to question the basis on which it had been agreed?
Respondents generally felt that the liable party should be able to question the success fee. One respondent who supported the liable party being able to challenge the success fee as unreasonable commented that this might involve the plaintiff in having to disclose previously undisclosed reports or witness statements. Another view was that there should be no restriction on the liable party seeking to review and that the litigant should have no right to question the terms agreed during the proceedings. One suggestion was that the success fee could be approved before proceedings by the taxing master or district judge (although this could not help where the court was not engaged). There was also concern that being able to challenge the success fee might lead to satellite litigation and increased costs. From the finance industry, there was a suggestion that litigants should be able to challenge success fees and that lawyers should be compelled to repay excessive success fees, and that there should be a right to question the success fee only where it can be shown to be extortionate. There was also the view that with regulation and insurance there should be no basis for disagreement.
7. . .How should any disagreement best be resolved?Many of the respondents suggest taxation or a similar process. There was also a suggestion that it would be helpful if the trial judge made comments when awarding costs to indicate whether the success fee is broadly acceptable. Another view was that solicitors should record at the outset specified information in a prescribed format so that it can be presented to whoever hears the challenge, and that if judges are to decide, they should be able to refer difficult matters to a designated expert operating a fast track procedure.
8. Should representation in medical negligence cases be limited to those lawyers, whether solicitors or barristers, who have shown that they have sufficient competence in this area?
Over half the respondents who commented on this proposal supported it. There was overwhelming support from unions, consumer groups, medical associations, and other interest groups. The consumer groups voiced concern that the restrictions should not be too stringent and there must be adequate provision across the country. There was concern among solicitors about this restriction. On one view it would not be justified unless it can be shown that specialist practitioners would get significantly better outcomes for clients than others. There is also concern that it might restrict access to justice and reduce client choice. There is support among barristers for block contracting for solicitors. One view is that competent solicitors will instruct competent barristers of their choice. There was little support among barristers and their associations for restricting the choice of barrister in medical negligence cases. Another comment was that competence should not be confused with specialism.
Some concern was expressed by a respondent in the finance industry about how this specialisation might affect the conditional fee agreement market in this area . There was also a suggestion that medical negligence cases should not be conducted by lawyers but by medical practitioners, in a tribunal presided over by a medical practitioner taking advice from a legally qualified member of staff.
9. By what measures might competence be determined?
The general answer was by membership of the Law Society Medical Negligence Panel, or something similar such as the Action for Victims of Medical Negligence (AVMA) panel.
It was also suggested that there should be mentoring for solicitors to gain the relevant experience, and that for barristers there could be a combination of experience and continuing education. There was also a view that counsel should not accept instructions unless they are within their competence, that solicitors who instruct barristers are in the best position to assess the performance of counsel and that the selection by solicitors provides the necessary quality assurance of counsel.
There was a suggestion that at least one solicitor in the firm should be a member of the Law Society Medical Negligence Panel, and that similar panels for the Bar should be established. A specialist regulatory body was also suggested, which would also provide training. Another view was that experience, rather than membership of a panel, is the important factor. One respondent suggested that competence should be determined by many factors including advocacy and counselling skills, disability awareness, an accredited training scheme, financial stability, and a geographical consideration, reflecting a willingness to take cases countrywide.
10. The Government would welcome views on the categories of cases that it intends to exclude from the scope of legal aid, and whether any other categories of case could be excluded.
The majority of respondents did not support the proposal to exclude some proceedings from legal aid. There was particular concern about legal aid no longer being available in these categories for children and the mentally disabled, and for claims which are not seeking monetary recompense, as many respondents did not think conditional fee agreements would be a workable alternative in these circumstances. There was much comment from solicitors that they would not be able to fund the cost of investigations and insurance premiums for clients, although a few solicitors were supportive of the move to conditional fees.
There was a suggestion that if legal aid is withdrawn for litigation, it should be made available for advice and mediation for small value partnerships, minority shareholders, business and boundary disputes. Another respondent believed there is a public interest in society determining the proper administration of successions (ie inheritance), trusts, running of businesses and use of land, and does not think that legal aid should be removed from these areas.
Some banks are concerned that the use of conditional fee agreements in place of legal aid will place increased risk on banks lending to law firms, and that the policy may lead to the failure of some law firms.
11. What are the types of exceptional case, within the categories likely to be excluded from legal aid, that might justify continued funding either because they involved a significant public interest or because the costs became too high to make the case suitable for a conditional fee?
While few respondents agreed with the proposal to withdraw any legal aid, if it was withdrawn then the proposals for some continued public funding were welcomed. Many respondents thought that other cases with similar characteristics to medical negligence, such as pollution and industrial disease, where costs were high and there were high investigation costs, should continue to receive legal aid. Another suggested retention of inheritance and will cases in which the property where the applicant or respondent claims to live is the only matter in dispute. There was also a suggestion that the Legal Aid Board should decide which cases warrant public funding.
The proposal to provide support for some public interest cases was generally welcomed, and there were many suggestions for making this a much broader category. For example, it was suggested that a public interest fund should support clarification of the law, the establishment and control of fair administrative justice, and the consequential effects of a single decision on a group of similarly affected people. The fund should support third party litigation. One respondent thought that there should be three separate funds, for group actions, individual high-cost claims, and public interest cases. Another thought funding is needed for test cases, for example tobacco, Gulf War Syndrome, pollution injury cases. Other suggestions were that fatal accidents, including representation at inquests, actions against the police, including personal injury, housing and judicial review should also be covered. There was also support for funding cases that challenge the interpretation of the terms of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, cases defining harassment under the Protection of Harassment Act 1997, and cases alleging breach of the European Court of Human Rights. There was support for environmental litigation being funded although one respondent warned that there needs to be a balance between public interest and ‘not in my back yard' litigation.
12. Is the threshold of £100,000 for defining a high cost case reasonable?
Many of the respondents who commented on this question thought that £100,000 was too high. Suggestions ranged from £10,000 to those who agreed with the figure of £100,000, and some thought the nature of the case should dictate the funding available rather than its cost.
13. Is the approach set out in paragraphs 3.35 to 3.37 feasible? Are there other ways of introducing incentives to use a conditional fee, rather than legal aid, whenever possible?
Although there was little support for the withdrawal of legal aid, if it did go ahead then the proposal for transitional funding was supported. There was little comment about the approach set out in the consultation paper for a transitional fund.
Suggestions for incentives to use conditional fees included:
14. How can the Government facilitate the development of legal expenses insurance, whether through changes to the law or otherwise?
There were a variety of suggestions, in particular that there should be tax relief for the insurance premiums. Other suggestions included:
15. The Government would welcome views on how it could help sustain the continued success and the expansion of what amount to bulk purchasing arrangements by trade unions and others.
There were not many responses to this question. Lawyers' associations generally welcomed the possibility of expanding these schemes and it was suggested that monitoring and further information was needed in this area in order to judge how effective such schemes are.
There was concern that any proposals to limit the amount of costs recoverable in the fast track system would impact on trade union legal schemes, and discourage settlement in personal injury cases, or result in cases being settled for a fraction of their real value. Another comment was that the current indemnity rule makes it difficult for trade unions to make agreements with law firms that would involve a lower fee being paid for cases which are run on behalf of unions, and lost, than would be charged to the losing party.
One union thinks legislation is needed to enable bulk purchasers to enter into costs arrangements under which the nominated firm was paid other than by reference to individual cases and, as happens with legal aid cases, the statutory discount would not apply to costs recovered from the unsuccessful party.
One respondent argues that the regulatory framework should permit and encourage not just bulk purchasing arrangements, but a wide range of provision, for example the use of advisers of various kinds and the use of internal legal departments. Government policy should not simply promote the substitution of legal expenses insurers and trade unions for the Legal Aid Board in funding the purchase of possibly inappropriate services from solicitors.
There was little comment on this from the finance industry, other than a couple of insurers giving general support for the efficiencies of bulk purchasing. One insurer urged caution in encouraging bulk purchase schemes which do not have secure insurance backing and protection from the Consumer Protection Act.
16. Other comments
Many respondents wrote in support of the establishment of a 'contingency legal aid fund' or 'CLAF'. There are a number of variations but the essential idea is for a proportion of successful litigants' damages to be paid into a fund which would then pay for the legal costs of unsuccessful litigants. Such a fund would require substantial funding to start up. There is also concern that it would not work well alongside conditional fees, as solicitors would be likely to use conditional fees for stronger cases where they could charge an uplift and only the weaker cases would use the CLAF.
The Government remains committed to achieving the aims set out in the consultation paper of extending access to justice and beginning the process of refocusing legal aid to where it can do most good. The Government has received wide support to extend conditional fees to all civil proceedings other than family cases and we are keen to proceed as quickly as possible. As soon as practicable, an Order will be laid for the approval of Parliament to extend conditional fees to all proceedings not excluded by statute. For the longer term, the Government continues to believe the operation and fairness of conditional fees would be enhanced by making the success fee and insurance premium recoverable. The Government wishes to consider this further before reaching any final decision and is minded to seek the legislation to allow the success fees and insurance premiums to be recoverable as soon as possible.
Legal aid is in urgent need of reform and the Government will begin the process of reform in a number of ways. First, the Government will ensure that assisted persons have access to suitably competent lawyers in medical negligence cases by using existing powers to direct clients towards specialist lawyers who hold franchise contracts with the Legal Aid Board. It will be a condition of holding a contract that the lawyers have shown themselves to be competent in this area of law. The Lord Chancellor has asked the Legal Aid Board to press ahead with putting in place the necessary contracts and wishes to see these contracts in place by January 1999.
To achieve the maximum benefit from the money available, the Government is determined to ensure that legal aid is not spent in purchasing legal services where a suitable alternative exists. It believes that conditional fees provide a suitable alternative, particularly in a range of money claims. It recognises, however, that this alternative would be more attractive if the success fee and insurance premium were recoverable. For that reason the Government is considering how quickly to move to a position where the kinds of money claims described in the Consultation Paper, in particular personal injury claims, could be financed principally by conditional fee agreements rather than legal aid. The Government would like to be able to move to this position by October 1999.
| No | Name | Organisation |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Sandom Robinson Solicitors | |
| 2 | Anthony Barton | Solicitor and medical practitioner |
| 3 | David I Shapiro | S J Berwin & Co |
| 4 | J Golding | Freeth Cartwright Hunt & Dickens |
| 5 | William Normanton | |
| 6 | Richard Tattershall | Tattershalls Partnership Solicitors |
| 7 | Peter J Todd | Solicitor |
| 8 | addition | |
| 9 | Rodney Bickerstaffe | UNISON |
| 10 | Peter Thompson QC | General Editor of Butterworths County Court Precedents and Pleadings |
| 11 | Harry Boggis-Rolfe | Barrister |
| 12 | Paul Templar | |
| 13 | J M Fletcher | J M Fletcher & Co Solicitors |
| 14 | Celia Davies | Greenwich Community Health Council |
| 15 | Paul Balen | Freeth Cartwright Hunt Dickens |
| 16 | James W Hastings | |
| 17 | Andrew Paton | Solicitor |
| 18 | Peter Andrews QC | Barrister |
| 19 | G F Manley | |
| 20 | Malcolm Lynch | Malcolm Lynch Solicitors |
| 21 | Robert Harris | City Finance International Ltd. |
| 22 | Jennifer Bartrum | Crombie Wilkinson Solicitors |
| 23 | Tessa Roxburgh | Tyrer Roxburgh & Co |
| 24 | Robert F Carson | |
| 25 | Houghton & Co | |
| 26 | John Hawkridge | Hawkridge & Co Solicitors |
| 27 | Neil R L Cawley | 55 Temple Chambers |
| 28 | Joe O'Hara | GMB |
| 29 | David Farrington | Solicitor |
| 30 | G P Turner | |
| 31 | Mr J H Trusted | Barrister |
| 32 | David C Allen | Retired solicitor |
| 33 | Louise Christian | Christian Fisher Solicitors |
| 34 | Karen Hull | Solicitor |
| 35 | Glazer Delmar Solicitors | |
| 36 | Owen Tudor | TUC |
| 37 | Malcolm D Horner | Rowlands Solicitors |
| 38 | D S Hamilton | Metropolitan Police Solicitors Dept |
| 39 | W L Fenner | |
| 40 | Andrew Holroyd | Jackson and Canter Solicitors |
| 41 | Bruce Tyrer | Solicitor |
| 42 | J G Ross Martyn | Barrister |
| 43 | Michael Hinds | Nottinghamshire Coalition of Disabled People |
| 44 | John Brimelow | Walker Smith & Way |
| 45 | Ms J H Richie QC | The Chambers of Harvey McGregor QC |
| 46 | Declan O'Mahony | Arden Chambers |
| 47 | M Wilding | |
| 48 | Graeme S Fraser | Solicitor |
| 49 | Lara Nash | The Insolvency Service |
| 50 | Tom Jones | Thompsons |
| 51 | Barlows Solicitors | |
| 52 | Mr P D A Hankins | Winterbothams Solicitors |
| 53 | Professor Judith Masson | Warwick University |
| 54 | A Mowatt | Keystone - Underwriting Agents |
| 55 | G C Wintle | Institute of Chartered Accountants |
| 56 | A Spiers | Devon & Exeter Incorporated Law Society |
| 57 | Brian Dawson | Walker Smith & Way |
| 58 | confidential | |
| 59 | B Birnberg | B M Birnberg & Co |
| 60 | Boys & Maughan | |
| 61 | D C Rudd | Walker Smith & Way |
| 62 | Dr Simpson | Medical & Dental Defence Union of Scotland |
| 63 | Ms Nicola Solomon | Stephens Innocent Solicitors |
| 64 | E B Stone | FDA Legal Aid Branch LAB Nottingham Area Office |
| 65 | C Casserley | RNIB |
| 66 | Peter Crossley | Hammond Suddards |
| 67 | P R Brown | J & H Marsh & McLennan (UK) Ltd. |
| 68 | Mr T R Osborne | Osborne Morris & Morgan |
| 69 | J A J Williams | Macquillan & Co |
| 70 | Marion Chester | Association of Community Health Councils |
| 71 | Jennifer Johnson | Cranswick Watson |
| 72 | Glenys Stacey | Criminal Cases Review Commission |
| 73 | John M Collins | Barrister |
| 74 | Georgina Nestle | Complaints Against Solicitors Action for Independent Adjudication |
| 75 | Blake Lapthorn Solicitors | |
| 76 | Stuart Sime | Barrister |
| 77 | P W Smith | First Assist Group Limited |
| 78 | Richard Oughton | Barrister |
| 79 | Joanne Dee | Beachcroft Stanleys Solicitors |
| 80 | Marie De Viell | BB & O Inc Law Society |
| 81 | Leigh Day & Co | |
| 82 | Sarah Harrison | Cobden House Chambers |
| 83 | Christopher J S Hodges | Cameron McKenna |
| 84 | A J C Parker | Forum of Insurance Lawyers |
| 85 | Gary McFarlane | Metcalfes Solicitors |
| 86 | Hilary De Lyon | ACLEC |
| 87 | Gary R Markham | Legalgard Limited |
| 88 | Cuff Roberts Solicitor | |
| 89 | Mr B J D Raincock | Litigation Protection Limited |
| 90 | Mr M S Bednarczyk | Hart Brown Solicitors |
| 91 | Mr Lee Jasper | The 1990 Trust |
| 92 | S N Middleton | Stephens & Scown with Murdoch Tromans Solicitors |
| 93 | Olivia Klevan | Consumers Association |
| 94 | Wendy Backhouse | Housing Law Practitioners Association |
| 95 | William H Montague | Legal Aid Practioners Group |
| 96 | E M Armstrong | BMA |
| 97 | Master Leslie | Queen's Bench Division |
| 98 | Andrew Granville Stafford | The Chambers of Nicholas Jarman QC |
| 99 | confidential | |
| 100 | Edward Harris & Son Solicitors | |
| 101 | Mrs J Tarry | |
| 102 | Nick Armstrong | Trainee Solicitors' Group |
| 103 | Evill and Coleman | |
| 104 | His Honour Judge Bernard Marder QC | President of the Lands Tribunal |
| 105 | Andrew Buchan | |
| 106 | Steven Tomlinson | Bhakar Tomlinson Solicitors |
| 107 | Nigel Primer | Willis Faber & Dumas Global Broking Services |
| 108 | Harrison Bundey & Co | |
| 109 | Ivan Geffen | Geffens Solicitors |
| 110 | Susan Murray | Solicitor |
| 111 | Ken Thomas | Edwards Geldard |
| 112 | Mr P Madden | Green Alliance |
| 113 | Trowers & Hamlins | |
| 114 | David Harris | Bindman & Partners |
| 115 | confidential | |
| 116 | K R Mort | |
| 117 | R Hartley QC and P Milmo QC | Barristers |
| 118 | C M Harper | Stephens & Scown |
| 119 | Ms N Crowther | British Bankers' Association |
| 120 | Mr R Gibbins | P A Gibbins & Co |
| 121 | Ian Pears | Solicitor |
| 122 | Mr R Latham | Housing Law Practitioners Association |
| 123 | District Judge RJ Savage | |
| 124 | duplicate | |
| 125 | Christine Malkin | Amicus Legal Ltd |
| 126 | addition | |
| 127 | Nicholas Nicol | Housing Law Practitioners Association |
| 128 | Anne Ware | Davies Arnold Cooper |
| 129 | Dr R N Palmer | Medical Protection Society |
| 130 | Jean Gould | Public Law Project |
| 131 | Jonathan R Gulliford | RAC Legal Services |
| 132 | David Morgan | Holborn Law Society |
| 133 | T J Gabbutt | Blackburn Incorporated Law Association |
| 134 | Richard M Fox | London Solicitors Litigation Association |
| 135 | draft version | |
| 136 | Robert Temblett | Barrister |
| 137 | Miss A E Lawson QC | The Family Law Bar Association |
| 138 | Miss R Tait | Smith & Graham |
| 139 | duplicate | |
| 140 | N R Puddicombe | Bristol Law Society |
| 141 | duplicate | |
| 142 | confidential | |
| 143 | confidential | |
| 144 | Magi Young | Parlett Kent |
| 145 | Teresa Reynolds | Victim Support |
| 146 | Denise L Kitchener | Association of Personal Injury Lawyers |
| 147 | Dr J Wardle | Childrens Head Injury Trust |
| 148 | Peter Holding | Helphire (UK) Limited |
| 149 | Mrs Anne Campbell Robertson | |
| 150 | Anne Owers | Justice |
| 151 | Myers List Price | |
| 152 | Mark Standen | Association of British Insurers |
| 153 | Allan M Dale | |
| 154 | David Melville | London Common Law and Commercial Bar Association |
| 155 | Thames Valley Franchise User Group | |
| 156 | Vicki Chapman | Legal Action Group |
| 157 | Richard Annandale | Healthcare Lawyers Association |
| 158 | Kate Menin | Titmuss Sainer Dechert |
| 159 | confidential | |
| 160 | Alistair Graham | Newcastle upon Tyne Incorporated Law Society |
| 161 | duplicate | |
| 162 | Carolyn George and David Thomas | Child Poverty Action Group |
| 163 | The General Council of the Bar | |
| 164 | Personal Injury Bar Association | |
| 165 | Ann Alexander | Alexander Harris |
| 166 | Mr John Watson | SERA Labour Environment Campaign |
| 167 | Kerry Underwood | Underwoods |
| 168 | David Gray & Co | |
| 169 | Andrew Nicol | Immigration Law Practioners' Association |
| 170 | Richard Buxton | Environmental Lawyer |
| 171 | Jeremy L Fish | The Furness & District Law Society |
| 172 | Steve Oram | The Newspaper Publishers Association |
| 173 | Yvonne Brown | Black Solicitors Network |
| 174 | Ingrid Marshall | The Green Alliance |
| 175 | Mr J Bryant | National Housing Federation |
| 176 | I G Quinn | ACPO |
| 177 | Robert Jones | Robert Jones Solicitors |
| 178 | draft version | |
| 179 | Brian Thompson | The Expert Witness Institute |
| 180 | Mr Geoffrey Vos QC | Chancery Bar Association |
| 181 | Professor Colleen Graffy | Pepperdine University School of Law |
| 182 | confidential | |
| 183 | Jonathan C James | Chambers & Co |
| 184 | Brian Lamb | Scope |
| 185 | Stuart Gillings | Bolt Burdon |
| 186 | Mark Harvey | Smith Llewelyn Partnership |
| 187 | CNA Reinsurance Company Ltd | |
| 188 | Charles Dewhurst | The Medical Defence Union Limited |
| 189 | Arnold Simanowitz | Action for Victims of Medical Accidents |
| 190 | Helena Twist | Legislation Committee National Federation of Consumer Groups |
| 191 | Antony Gold | Eversheds |
| 192 | The Law Society | |
| 193 | Edward Garnier MP | (enclosing correspondence from constituents) |
| 194 | duplicate | |
| 195 | Harvey Kass | Associated Newspapers Ltd |
| 196 | Marlene Winfield | National Consumer Council |
| 197 | duplicate | |
| 198 | Anthony Gold Lerman & Muirhead | |
| 199 | Kate Markus | Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers |
| 200 | Melanie McDonald | Barrister |
| 201 | duplicate | |
| 202 | G M Ferguson | Withy King |
| 203 | Simon Mortimer | Carlisle and District Law Society |
| 204 | Richard Barcan | Barcan Woodward |
| 205 | duplicate | |
| 206 | addition | |
| 207 | duplicate | |
| 208 | John M Kichingman | Pannone & Partners |
| 209 | duplicate | |
| 210 | duplicate | |
| 211 | Nicholas Davidson QC | Professional Negligence Bar Association |
| 212 | Charles J Lewis | Barrister |
| 213 | P Cheadle & C Smith | Leicestershire Law Society |
| 214 | W M Duncan | Wolferstans |
| 215 | Chief Master Hurst | Supreme Court Taxing Office |
| 216 | Amanda Granger | Solicitor |
| 217 | addition | |
| 218 | Grace Wedekind | National Council of Women of Great Britain |
| 219 | Mr G A Ryall-Harvey | Chester & Ellesmere Port Community Health Council |
| 220 | Santha Rasaiah | The Newspaper Society |
| 221 | duplicate | |
| 222 | duplicate | |
| 223 | Maria Adebowale | Environmental Law Foundation |
| 224 | duplicate | |
| 225 | duplicate | |
| 226 | P D Sweetman | Sweetman Burke & Sinker |
| 227 | same as 211 | |
| 228 | H Bahra & T Schmacher | Environmental Legal & Mediation Service |
| 229 | A C Butler | Alternative Dispute Resolution Group |
| 230 | duplicate | |
| 231 | Ursula Riniker | |
| 232 | J P Cairns | Shulmans Solicitors |
| 233 | duplicate | |
| 234 | confidential | |
| 235 | Howard Trust | Barclays PLC |
| 236 | G R Hickinbottom | Solicitor |
| 237 | Paul Dubar | The Institute of Legal Executives |
| 238 | Chris Harrison & Company | |
| 239 | Sonya Leydecker | Herbert Smith |
| 240 | Trevor A Lee | Birmingham Law Society |
| 241 | Jay Sharma | Law Centres Federation |
| 242 | District Judge Stephen Rogers | Association of District Judges |
| 243 | Kevin R Souter | Solicitor |
| 244 | D B Ll George | The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry |
| 245 | Lona Parry | Motor Accident Solicitors' Society |
| 246 | Anthony Speaight QC | Official Referee's Bar Association |
| 247 | duplicate | |
| 248 | R L Stockdale | Leeds Law Society |
| 249 | M S Johnson | Northern Bar Chancery Association |
| 250 | A J Hannan | Clarke Willmott & Clarke |
| 251 | Chief Master P T Hurst | Supreme Court Taxing Office |
| 252 | Mary l'Anson | Solicitors Family Law Association |
| 253 | Mr F A Abbas | |
| 254 | Ann Coffey MP | (enclosing letter from Abson Hall) |
| 255 | addition | |
| 256 | Kerry Davies | |
| 257 | Alastair Evans | Lloyd's |
| 258 | L Lomas | |
| 259 | R H Vidal | National Farmers Union |
| 260 | Ian A Garrow OBE | Headway |
| 261 | Ian M Godfrey | Shepherd Harris & Co |
| 262 | John Burnett MP | Liberal Democrat Lawyers Association |
| 263 | Legal Aid Board | |
| 264 | Murray Heining | Law Costs Draftsman |
| 265 | John Flanagan | Liverpool & District Victims of Asbestos Support Group |
| 266 | John Wheatley | National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux |
During the consultation period 238 formal responses to the consultation paper were received. A further 28 were received subsequently making a total of 266. During the analysis it became clear that some of the responses were duplicates, additions, amendments or drafts of other responses and where this was so it is set out in the list.
Responses are marked confidential where this was requested by respondents.