header-logo header-logo

18 November 2011 / Patrick Allen
Issue: 7490 / Categories: Opinion , Legal services
printer mail-detail

Seeing both sides

Patrick Allen rallies against anti-referral fee rhetoric

The proposed ban on referral fees is a profoundly anti-consumer measure, based on prejudice and the interests of insurers, which cannot be justified by the facts or practicalities.

Contrary to the spin from the Association of British Insurers, referral fees are not paid by insurers or clients and are not a recoverable item in the bill of costs of a successful claimant. They are a marketing overhead paid by some solicitors to acquire work. If solicitors could acquire that work more cheaply in their own marketing campaigns, they would do so. However, they mostly lack the expertise and reach, which comes with big spending, to operate in a highly competitive market.

Evidence about the workings of referral fees was painstakingly gathered by the Legal Services Board (LSB) between 2009 and 2010. The LSB could find no detriment to consumers in the payment of referral fees, only benefits. Referral fees have played an important part in freeing up the personal injury market, by providing information about claims, and assisting injured people to make contact with a lawyer. The

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll