Contingent fees, the plaintiff lawyer's best friend, are starting to catch on in the U.K. In England they call them CFAs, for conditional fee arrangements.
It's come to light because the media are howling at the thought of facing more defamation suits filed on a contingent fee basis. "CFAs" emerged in personal injury cases as a response to the curtailing of legal aid funding, according to a recent article in the Guardian newspaper. The idea was to allow lawyers to take cases for claimants who could not afford legal fees themselves. Remember that in the U.K., the loser in litigation usually pays the winner's costs, which is a huge deterrent to filing a lawsuit there.
The media was sanguine until lawyers started to bring defamation claims on a contingent fee basis. Lawyer fees and litigation costs are awarded by the judge at the end of a case. The Guardian said this was "grossly unfair" and of course, attacked lawyers for being greedy rather than focus on their own negligent publishing habits. The paper also said that in awarding cots, judges were not sophisticated enough in libel to understand what they were doing.
"Due to such potentially massive costs awards in libel cases, some newspaper lawyers are concerned about the chilling effect these awards will have on freedom of expression," the paper said. "Newspaper may decline to publish controversial material lest they incur a defamation action and the potential costs penalties."
And horrors! The not-so-poor are using contingent fees! "Now CFAs are being used not just for impecunious claimants but for wealthy ones as well," said the Guardian. "This is not so much about access to justice...but a simple convenience for claimants, leaving the media defendant in danger of being at the receiving end of an inflated cost award.
The article neglected to mention that truth is an absolute defense against a defamation claim. But what can you expect from the British press?
8:06:47 AM 
|
