You are all probably aware of the feedback exercise on the Jackson Reforms (*cough* http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/JCO%2fDocuments%2fCJC%2fPublications%2fOther+papers%2ftheimpactoftheJacksonreformsoncostsandcasemanagement.pdf *cough*)
I feel some degree of sympathy for Sir Rupert as the reforms have been completely taken over by the Mitchell decision. What pours salt into the wound is few people gave a toss about the plebgate nonsense. It was something for the red tops to get excited about and managed to raise Mitchell’s profile tenfold as he was unrecognisable on the street up to that point.
Anyway back on point. Feedback has been sought from interested parties. Make sure you top up your inkwell as the maximum limit is 3000 words!! (I signed off with less than 1,000). The feedback sought is to be categorised by posing specific questions:
- types of cases being taken on (and not being taken on) by law firms
- the funding of civil litigation in the light of changes to CFAs and the introduction of DBAs and QOCS, and on
- experiences of costs budgeting and the management of cases through the courts.
It’s not very difficult to predict the feedback they will receive. My £10 note goes on:
- Anything in a portal is being ran strategically to get it to fall outside of the portal at the earliest opportunity. If stuck in a portal then the file is handled by
child labourjunior fee earners;
- This overlaps with the above – law firms are taking only “sure things” on CCFA’s. Anything with lower prospects than this will either be rejected or accepted on a private funding basis; and
- Costs budgeting – please roll a dice. For all other management of cases, post-Mitchell, please roll another dice.
I would encourage you all to provide feedback.
Over and out.
P.S. Chatham House rules apply to the meeting. I think most of you will be able to guess your fellow lawyer’s view on this.