It is interesting to note the issues raised regarding fixed costs in this article.
We need more professionals to raise awareness of these views regarding fixed costs and the potential consequences. As a legal profession we still have a great deal to learn about the practical consequences caused by the introduction of fixed costs.
I completely agree that we need more media exposure and discussion generally around the practical day to day issues currently experienced by personal injury lawyers.
Personal injury lawyers have been working within the fixed costs framework for some time. Their experiences should be used and shared to raise awareness amongst the legal profession and wider public that fixed fees are not the answer to improving access to justice. Indeed, in many instances it appears to prevent and restrict access.
One of the justifications provided by Lord Jackson in support of his proposals to roll out fixed costs across all civil litigation claims was that this would increase access to justice, yet there are many practicing lawyers whose experience says otherwise.
Victims whose case is worth less than £25,000, particularly elderly victims, will miss out on what they are due because of these rules. People injured through no fault of their own, who placed their trust in the very organisation that was supposed to restore them to health.Throughout this debate it is the victims who have been forgotten and overlooked: fixed fees may bring down spending, but at what cost to them?The Paterson victims have a right to justice, but so do many others. It’s just a shame it takes such a high-profile case for people to wake up to the potential injustice being pushed through with barely a murmur of dissent.