Referral fees – the business of access to justice

Legal Studies ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-131 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Higgins
Keyword(s):  
Justice System ◽  
Public Funding ◽  
Legal Rights ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Legal Services ◽  
Civil Justice ◽  
Better Regulation ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right ◽  
Civil Justice System

The paper examines the controversial issue of referral fees for personal injury claims. It looks at the function of referral fees in the civil justice system, their relationship to the guarantees of access to court and the right to seek legal assistance in ECHR Art 6, and the debate about promoting access to justice or a litigious society. It examines the experience of the referral fees market in England and Wales, where the costs of referrals have risen dramatically and there is concern that referrers are auctioning their customers to the highest bidder rather than helping them find competent lawyers. Sir Rupert Jackson recommended banning referral fees in his report on the costs of civil litigation, and the Government has announced it will implement this recommendation. The paper considers the potential effects of a ban on competition in the legal services market and its compatibility with UK and EU competition law. The paper argues that a combination of better regulation of the industry and proper regulation of costs rules is a better and more proportionate way of controlling legal costs and the quality of legal services than an outright ban. While referral fees have not delivered all the benefits one would expect from a for-profit independent referrals service, they can help people obtain information about their legal rights, and competent lawyers to enforce them. This service is particularly valuable given that the state has substantially cut public funding of the civil justice system in recent years.

scholarly journals The American medical liability system: An alliance between legal and medical professionals can promote patient safety and be cost effective

2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 97
Author(s):  
Steven E. Pegalis
Keyword(s):  
Patient Safety ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The United States ◽  
Medical Liability ◽  
Legal Rights ◽  
Medical Professionals ◽  
Civil Justice ◽  
Culture Of Safety ◽  
Civil Justice System

Objective: The aim of this paper is to evaluate a hypothesis premised on the idea that if medical leaders in the United States support an unfettered access for patients injured by medical error to the American civil justice system, that approach would improve patient safety and be cost effective. Method: An analysis of the relevant legal and medical literature. Results: Medical liability in the American civil justice system derived from traditional tort law is based on accountability. Reforms applied to medical liability cases urged by healthcare providers limit and in some cases eliminate legal rights of patients injured by healthcare error which rights exist for all others in non-medical cases. Yet medical liability cases have promoted a culture of safety. Information learned from medical liability cases has been used to make care safer with a reduced incidence of adverse outcomes and lower costs. A just culture of safety can limit provider emotional stress. Using the external pressures to reduce the incidence of law suits and promoting ethical mandates to be safer and disclose the truth can promote provider satisfaction. Conclusions: An alliance between legal and medical professionals on the common ground of respect for the due process legal rights of patients in the American system of justice and the need for accountability can make care safer and can be cost effective.

Jeffrey O’Connell and the Market in Tort Claims

2013 ◽  
Vol 6 (1-2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony J. Sebok
Keyword(s):  
Justice System ◽  
Transitional Period ◽  
Civil Justice ◽  
Insurance Scheme ◽  
Theoretical Assumptions ◽  
Tort System ◽  
Tort Litigation ◽  
Fault Compensation ◽  
The Right ◽  
Civil Justice System

AbstractThis article examines a transitional period in Jeffrey O’Connell’s long and productive career as an observer and critic of the American civil justice system. By the early 1970’s O’Connell had begun to abandon enterprise liability as a solution to the waste and undercompensation he saw in the tort system. Eventually O’Connell would develop solutions that focused on constraining plaintiffs’ attorneys, and less on no-fault compensation. Before reaching this point, O’Connell proposed a no-fault insurance scheme that would be paid for by fault-based tort litigation. This proposal, which he called “elective first party no-fault insurance” (“EFPI”) is the focus of this article. In EFPI tort suits would not disappear, and damages would not be limited, but litigation would be conducted by insurers who had been assigned their insured’s lawsuits. This article describes how this novel tort reform would work, and explores the theoretical assumptions upon which it is based. One assumption in particular, which is examined, is that a market in tort litigation could be socially efficient if the right sort of plaintiffs’ lawyers were recruited to conduct it. Finally, this article points out that O’Connell called for the repeal of champerty laws at least a decade before many other modern legal academics focused on the potential of a market in litigation.

scholarly journals A critical analysis of the inefficacy of Court-Annexed Mediation (CAM) in South Africa – lessons from Nigeria

2021 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 25-54
Author(s):  
EC Muller ◽  
◽  
CL Nel
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
South African ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Civil Justice ◽  
Department Of Justice ◽  
Constitutional Development ◽  
Optimal Functioning ◽  
Civil Justice System

As a result of defects in the South African civil justice system, the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development introduced voluntary court-annexed mediation (CAM) in the magistrates’ courts in 2014. CAM was chosen under the broader need for greater access to justice because it has the potential to make dispute resolution efficient, amicable, and affordable. It can, therefore, contribute to access to justice for all members of society. Since the amendment of the Magistrates’ Court Rules to provide for CAM, the uptake of mediation in terms of the CAM system has unfortunately been inadequate. The aim of this article is to identify reasons for the inefficacy of CAM since its implementation. We use normative research to critically analyse existing court rules and authority. We conclude that there are several reasons for CAM’s inefficacy which are elucidated in the main text. It is important to understand these reasons, as the legislature presents CAM as a mechanism to improve access to justice. From this platform, we evaluate the mechanisms for court-connected alternative dispute resolutions provided by the Nigerian Multi-Door Courthouse (MDC) system. This reveals policies and practices that could potentially improve the efficacy of CAM in South Africa, as these relate to the factors identified as impediments to the optimal functioning of CAM in our civil justice system. As such, we identify valuable lessons that can be learned from this comparison. Building hereon, and on the conclusions reached elsewhere in the article, we postulate that the mediation scheme, as contemplated by Rule 41A of the Uniform Rules of Court (as applied in the superior courts), should also be implemented in the magistrates’ courts. The article concludes that improving CAM in South Africa is of critical importance to advancing access to justice and departing from a culture of conventional adversarial dispute resolution.

Reflections from Former Masters of the Rolls on Managing Civil Justice

2020 ◽  
pp. 91-104
Author(s):  
Kate O’Regan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
National Security ◽  
Justice System ◽  
September 11 ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Judicial Discretion ◽  
Civil Justice ◽  
Post September 11 ◽  
The Right ◽  
Civil Justice System

This edited conversation between Professor Kate O’Regan of the Bonavero Institute of Human Rights and Lord Neuberger and Lord Dyson reflects on their Lordships’ time as judges and Masters of the Rolls managing the civil justice system in England & Wales. Subjects include: the value of the overriding objective; whether procedural rules should be prescriptive or allow for judicial discretion; the costs and funding crisis facing the justice system, especially for those of limited means, including how legal disputes should be funded and who should be funding them; and how to balance the right to a fair trial with national security interests in a post-September 11 world.

Understanding the Costs of Litigation: The Case of the Hourly-Fee Lawyer

1984 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 559-604 ◽  
Author(s):  
Herbert M. Kritzer ◽  
Austin Sarat ◽  
David M. Trubek ◽  
Kristin Bumiller ◽  
Elizabeth McNichol
Keyword(s):  
Justice System ◽  
Legal Services ◽  
Civil Justice ◽  
Research Project ◽  
Factors Influencing ◽  
Extensive Analysis ◽  
Major Factors ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Civil Justice System ◽  
Cost Equation

What does it mean to talk about the “cost of civil justice”? What can be done to bring down that cost? This article addresses these two important questions. Drawing on data collected by the Civil Litigation Research Project, the authors first examine the components of cost and then present an extensive analysis of what is by far the dominant element of the cost equation-legal services. The analysis of the cost of legal services examines the amount of time lawyers devote to cases and the rates they charge for their time. The major factors influencing time include adversariness, stakes, litigant goals, and court (federal versus state); hourly rates appear to be determined primarily by the legal services market. The article closes with a discussion of the implications of the results of the analysis for reforms of the civil justice system that might seek to lower the cost of justice.

scholarly journals Underestimating the Unrepresented: Cognitive Biases Disadvantage Pro Se Litigants in Family Law Cases

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn Mary Kroeper ◽  
Victor David Quintanilla ◽  
Michael Frisby ◽  
Nedim Yel ◽  
Amy Applegate ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Justice System ◽  
Cognitive Biases ◽  
The United States ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Randomized Experiments ◽  
Related Factors ◽  
Mere Presence ◽  
Dispute Resolution Mechanism ◽  
Civil Justice System ◽  
Wide Access

The majority of civil cases in the United States involve at least one pro se party—more often than not, at least one litigant is unrepresented by legal counsel. Despite efforts to provide pro se parties with information that decreases the procedural complexity of litigation, wide access to justice gaps persist between counseled and pro se litigants. We argue that, while helpful, information alone is not enough to close access-to-justice gaps, because the mere presence of counsel gives represented litigants a persuasive edge over pro se litigants in the eyes of legal officials. Two randomized experiments with civil court judges (Experiment 1) and attorney-mediators (Experiment 2), wherein only the presence of counsel varied (while other case-related factors were held constant), found that legal officials, on average, devalued the case merit of pro se litigants relative to otherwise identical counseled litigants. This case devaluation, in turn, shaped how legal officials expected pro se (vs. counseled) litigants to fare as they sought justice. Judges, attorneys, and mediators forecasted that pro se litigants would experience the civil justice system as less fair and less satisfying than counseled litigants, especially when the dispute resolution mechanism was trial (vs. mediation). These results suggest that perceptions of case merit are strongly influenced by a litigant’s counseled status. Comprehensive solutions to address access-to-justice gaps must consider ways to reduce legal officials’ biased perceptions of pro se litigants, so that they are not underestimated before their cases are even heard.

scholarly journals PENGAKUAN TERHADAP PIHAK NON-ADVOKAT DALAM PEMBERIAN BANTUAN HUKUM (Politik Hukum Bantuan Hukum Dalam Peraturan Perundang-Undangan Di Indonesia)

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 399
Author(s):  
Akmal Adicahya
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
State Law ◽  
Legal Aid ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right ◽  
Law Student

Access to justice is everyone rights that have to be fulfilled by the government. The regulation number 16 year 2011 of legal aid is an instrument held by the government to guarantee the right. The regulation allowed the participation of non-advocates to provide the legal aid. Through this policy, government emphasizes that:1) Indonesia is a state law which legal aid is an obliged instrument; 2) the prohibition of non-advocate to participate in legal aid is not relevant due to inadequate amount of advocate and citizen seek for justice (justiciabelen), and the advocate is not widely extended throughout Indonesia; 3) Non-Advocates, especially lecturer and law student are widely spread; 4) there are no procedural law which prohibits non-advocate to provide a legal aid. Those conditions are enough argument for government to strengthen the participation of non-advocates in providing legal aid. Especially for The Supreme Court to revise The Book II of Guidance for Implementing Court’s Job and Administration.Keywords: legal aid, non-advocate, justice

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document