The argument about legal costs in clinical negligence & personal injury litigation shows no sign of abating, says David Locke
- Going round in circles: legal costs arguments.
- Back to the future: retreating to the days of the Review of Civil Litigation Costs.
- The role of experts: an adversarial approach.
- Potential solutions: early disclosure of evidence and joint experts?
The argument about legal costs in clinical negligence (and personal injury) litigation cycles back around in ever decreasing circles, depressingly without any real nuance in the arguments at each repetition. Although it has been sadly overlooked in recent days, things are changing. However, in the face of lurid headlines and eye-watering figures, there is an apparently irresistible urge to retreat to the trenches that were dug during the Review of Civil Litigation Costs, and indeed even before that.
Slay the tropes
In response to concerns about claimant solicitor fees, the most often repeated trope (heard many times recently) is that medical defence organisations, insurers and their panel solicitors deliberately seek to delay settlement
