<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="WordPress/2.8.4" -->
<rss version="0.92">
<channel>
	<title>Civil Justice Blog</title>
	<link>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org</link>
	<description>Current issues in civil justice in the UK and around the World</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:50:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss092</docs>
	<language>en</language>
	
	<item>
		<title>Ambulance chasing or innovation?</title>
		<description><![CDATA[A nice little story in the Lawyer about iphone gadgets being used as a marketing tool (and possibly as a client adviser interface):
According to the Lawyer:
The Car Incident Assistant application gives accident victims the ability to get instant advice from the wreck of a crash, including access to a lawyer over the phone via a [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?p=186</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>3P Funding&#8230;.</title>
		<description><![CDATA[The Lawyer reports a new entrant into the market for third party funding, interesting because its reportedly not confining itself to higher value cases.
Claimants will be asked to pay a flat fee together with a daily interest rate, which will be halted on repayment.   The story doesn&#8217;t specify what the interest is payable on: presumably [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?p=183</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Surreptitious obtaining of evidence</title>
		<description><![CDATA[An interesting story in today&#8217;s Times in relation to Celebrity Chef Marco Pierre White&#8217;s divorce case, which deals with the legality of surreptitious obtaining of evidence and the potential exposure of practitioners to actions in tort which may have some relevance in civil proceedings. It also raises professional ethics issues.
Mr White has taken proceedings against [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?p=181</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Litigation in Social Context: Costs, Funding and Roles</title>
		<description><![CDATA[This paper by Stephen B. Burbank[1], University  of Pennsylvania was given at the Oxford Centre for Socio-legal Studies conference on litigation funding in the Summer.  The Centre have been attempting a comparative exercise in looking at the costs of litigation across civil justice systems worldwide.
Discussions about the roles of litigation outside of the United [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?p=178</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>How the twittering stops&#8230;?</title>
		<description><![CDATA[The Times is reporting that the High Court has issued a Writ via social networking site Twitter.
Given the nature of the site in question, it seemed appropriate to keep this post short!
]]></description>
		<link>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?p=176</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>A revolution for Scottish civil justice?</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Lord Gill&#8217;s eagerly awaited review of the Scottish civil justice system has just been published.  Recommendations include:

specialist sheriffs  in solemn crime, general civil, personal injury, family and commercial;
a dramatic increase in the exclusive jurisdiction of the sheriff court from its current level of £5,000 to £150,000;
a specialist personal injury court;
a docket system in the Court [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?p=173</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Collective Actions</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Government rejects CJC plea for generic right to bring collective actions.
The government has recently published a rather slender response to the CJC&#8217;s report Improving Access to Justice through Collective Actions.  It rejects the central recommendation that there should be a generic right of collective action applicable to any type of civil law claim.   With the [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?p=169</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Welcome&#8230;</title>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8230;to the Civil Justice Blog, a site designed to share information and debate civil justice in the UK and around the World.
The blog has moved from its original site to a bespoke webaddress here at www.civiljusticeblog.org.  Existing readers please update your RSS feeds and bookmarks.  New readers and commentators welcome!
You can read more about the [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?p=150</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Regulating contingency fees</title>
		<description><![CDATA[With the government consulting on the regulation of damage based agreements (DBAs more commonly known as contingency fees) and the Jackson Review also seeking views on whether to introduce them into litigation and if so how to regulate them (key points summarised here), it is worth considering how such agreements might need regulating.  This post considers:

Regulating the percentage fee
Charging ‘extras’
Undersettlement
Handcuff clauses
Choosing between funding
Improving information to consumers
Recoverability
Cross-sectoral as opposed to profession specific regulation
Whether regulation should be different for sophisticated clients]]></description>
		<link>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?p=124</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Contingency Fees to be regulated&#8230;?</title>
		<description><![CDATA[The government is consulting on regulating the current use of &#8216;damage based agreements&#8217; (contingency fees) for consumer protection purposes. The three areas in which they are considering regulation are:

the provision of clear and transparent information to consumers under DBAs, on all costs and expenses and alternative methods of funding;
regulating  a maximum % of the damages [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?p=114</link>
			</item>
</channel>
</rss>
