My Modern Law Review Article on the impact of contingency fees is out, based on two of my previous reports on a telephone interviews with employment law specialists, and employment claimants as well as an analysis of available date on employment tribunals it shows that there has not, contrary to popular belief, been an explosion of employment claims associated with contingency fees. Partly this is because the proportion of claims brought under a contingency fee in employment tribunals is very low (between 7 and 11% of all claims issued on the best available data) but the quality of claims brought (in terms of the merits of the cases) is not poorer than the quality of claims brought using other fundnig mechanisms. As such contingency fees, used alongside other forms of fudning, promote access to justice rather than create a detrimental explosion. The article also discusses the vexed topic of equal pay claims. Even there there is no evidence that the quality of claims brought by contingency fee lawyers was poorer than the quality of claims brought by other funders. Indeed, it is arguable that contingency fee lawyers have exposed significant injustice, by trade unions and local authorities in their treatment of low paid women.
- There’s something about Jolyon and Lucy…
- You’re masterful Mr President: Standards of Proof debate takes odd turn
- SCJs sing in Unison: Grayling’s high risk poker with the courts opens the tap on A2J jurisprudence
- Birds of a feather… Exploring gender homophily in the Supreme Court bar
- In with the old, but with a new sense of purpose – innovation with users