Lord Justice Jackson, the main architect of recent civil litigation reforms, has responded to critics, who say the new regime has boosted costs and reduced access to justice.
Writing in The Times, a week after the launch of the second NLJ/LSLA Litigation Trends Survey, Sir Rupert said that anything that changed the way lawyers work was “likely to be unpopular with the profession”.
The online survey, which polled LSLA members for their views on the implementation and effect of the reforms, found that 74% of respondents believed costs had increased since the reforms were introduced last April. However, Jackson LJ said that an opinion poll of lawyers was not the correct way to assess the reforms.
The “litmus test for the so-called Jackson reforms” he said was not whether they pleased lawyers, but whether they brought down costs and promoted access to justice.
Jackson LJ referred to the amendment of CPR Rule 3.9, which toughens up the courts’ approach to unjustified delays and breaches of orders, stating that his recommendation was made in response to calls for “firmer sanctions” from both claimant and defendant PI lawyers.
Although he did not comment on the ramifications of the Mitchell decision he said: “It is no part of my recommendations that lawyers should be unable to agree reasonable extensions of time for steps in litigation.”
Sir Rupert said he had been “shocked” by the levels of costs when he began his review of civil litigation, adding that some of the old rules “permitted gross over-remuneration of lawyers, insurers, claims management companies and others”. All those excessive costs were passed on to the public, he added.
The judge agreed that the regulations on damages-based agreements (which 70% of those surveyed are boycotting) were unsatisfactory and that he had “repeatedly” called for amendment.
The next NLJ/LSLA trends survey will be published in October.
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=e3c4b2f1_1)
