<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Civil Justice Blog &#187; Contingency</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?feed=rss2&#038;cat=4" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<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>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Regulating contingency fees</title>
		<link>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?p=124</link>
		<comments>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?p=124#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:18:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Richard Moorhead</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Contingency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Costs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jackson Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[no win no fee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contingency fees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cost shifting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawyers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal costs]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://civiljustice.wordpress.com/?p=124</guid>
		<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>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?feed=rss2&amp;p=124</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Contingency Fees to be regulated&#8230;?</title>
		<link>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?p=114</link>
		<comments>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?p=114#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:52:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Richard Moorhead</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Contingency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Costs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[no win no fee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contingency fees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawyers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://civiljustice.wordpress.com/?p=114</guid>
		<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>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?feed=rss2&amp;p=114</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Contingency Fees, BTE, TU and &#039;normal&#039; fees &#8211; New Research</title>
		<link>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?p=80</link>
		<comments>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?p=80#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 09:41:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Richard Moorhead</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Contingency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Costs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[no win no fee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contingency fees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cost shifting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawyers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://civiljustice.wordpress.com/?p=80</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I have a new research study published by the Deaprtment for Business Innovation and Skills.  Authored with Rebecca Cumming it looks at claimant perspective on their lawyer fee arrangements in Employment Tribunal claims.
It is the first study that we are aware of to compare client perspectives on four methods of funding: trade union funding; legal [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?feed=rss2&amp;p=80</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Referral Fees</title>
		<link>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?p=68</link>
		<comments>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?p=68#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:10:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Richard Moorhead</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Contingency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Costs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jackson Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[no win no fee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contingency fees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawyers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://civiljustice.wordpress.com/?p=68</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Lord Justice Jackson is plainly concerned about referral fees, as are a number of the interest groups he spoke too (including APIL, MASS (the Motor Accidents Solicitors Society).  The trade in cases is plainly seen as driving up costs and significant doubts are raised over the claim that the associated practices of advertising and claims [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?feed=rss2&amp;p=68</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>US-Style Contingency Fees in England and Wales</title>
		<link>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?p=46</link>
		<comments>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?p=46#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:19:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Richard Moorhead</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Contingency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Costs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jackson Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[no win no fee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contingency fees]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://civiljustice.wordpress.com/?p=46</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The introduction of damage-based contingency fees into litigation, where a lawyer is paid nothing if they lose and a percentage of damages if they win is a live issue again.    Jackson’s preliminary report gives a short but well-balanced summary of the arguments for and against damage-based contingency fees.  The tenor of the report suggests [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?feed=rss2&amp;p=46</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
