3000 Law Firms Out Of Business!

1. 3000 Law Firms Out Of Business! A Presentation by Gareth Kinvig Camps Solicitors

2. Camps Caseload Jan 2006-to-August 2007

3. Presentation Outline • The Legal Services Bill • Case Track Limits & The Claims Process, A New Era • RTA Case Law Update

4. Legal Services Bill • History of the Bill • Current Progress of the Bill • Main Provisions of the Bill

5. Main Provisions • Set out a regulatory framework • Create the Legal Services Board • Create the Office for Legal Complaints • Alternative Business Structures

6. Legal Services Board • Current Regulatory Framework • Law Society Concerns: • Independence of regulator • Heavy-handed approach • Government contribution to cost of new system?

7. Recent Lords Defeat of LSB • Legal Services Board should trust approved regulators’ judgement • Board should intervene only when regulator clearly falls short • “Potentially damaging to the independence of the legal profession" Lord Hunt of Wirral

8. Office for Legal Complaints • New complaints body • Based in old Law Society complaints premises • Using current staff & resources • Initial estimated cost £23 million per annum, saving £6 million on current system.

9. OLC-Points for Consideration • Redress for consumers through single independent service • Costs of seeing a Lawyer expected to rise • Estimated costs of set-up increased to £50 million • Another £25 million per year to run the new office

10. Alternative Business Structures • ABS can be a corporation e.g. subsidiary of insurer. • Creates one stop shop for various legal services • External investment permitted

11. How ABS will work? • Companies/Firms with non-lawyer owners to apply for license under the bill • Licensed and approved by regulator e.g. Law society • Some bodies exempt from licensing rules • New powers for Law Society during transition • Practices with up to 25% non-lawyer partners

12. Solicitors Preparing for Change

13. Solicitors Preparing for Change • Conversion is a good intermediate step for firms post-Clementi • ‘I think if you are a large firm you now almost have to answer the question: why aren’t you an LLP?’ • 40% Rise in LLPs fuelled by risk management

14. Why do we Need ABS? • Benefits for consumers • Benefits for Legal Services Providers • Benefits for other professions/industries

15. Why don’t we Need ABS? • Legal shake up will cost 3,000 firms • Big business will out-compete with bigger finances reducing access to law • Can smaller firms fight back?

16. Personal Injury Claims Reforms • The small claims track limit for PI cases to be unchanged at £1000 • The fast-track limit for PI cases to be raised from £15,000 to £25,000 • Fixed costs amount currently unknown, differential fixed costs proposed for claims of more than £2,500 • Fixed costs not to include referral fees • Introduction of fixed success fee • Premium for after-the-event insurance no longer recoverable • Claimants solicitor arranges ATE premium if liability is disputed

17. Value of damages (£)

18. Proposed New Claims Process • Notification • Claim form sent 5 days after initial instructions taken. • Settlement • Settlement packs sent within 15 days • Longer time limit for complex cases • 10 days to make counter offer • 20 days for negotiations • Insurers Deadlines Decision on Liability • Road Traffic Accident: 15 days • Employer/public: 30 days • Admission of liability legally binding • Following Admission of Liability • by Insurers • Claimants solicitor stops investigating • Offer of rehabilitation made

19. Case Law Update • DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT, ENVIRONMENT & THE REGIONS • v • MOTT MACDONALD LTD (2) AMEY MOUCHEL LTD • (3) CORNWALL COUNTY COUNCIL (2006)

20. DETR v (1) MOTT MACDONALD LTD (2) AMEY MOUCHEL LTD (3) CORNWALL COUNTY COUNCIL (2006) • Department settled claims and now claimed against its maintaining agents • Did the authorities’ duty apply only to the surface of the road? • Did the Highway Authority have a duty to maintain the drains and if so it required the repair of physical defects or extended to clearing blockages?

21. FARLEY v BUCKLEY (2007)

22. FARLEY v BUCKLEY (2007) • Farley’s case that Buckley ought to have edged forward bit by bit (nose poking) • Judge held F had been travelling at a speed, 30mph, that had been reckless

23. FARLEY v BUCKLEY (2007) Held • B was not negligent by moving forward continuously rather than nose-poking • The appeal was dismissed

24. GOUNDRY (A CHILD), PROCEEDING BY HER FATHER & LITIGATION FRIEND v HEPWORTH (2005) • Conclusion that H was negligent was based on the proposition that she was required to stop and let the waiting group cross the road. • That proposition was incorrect. The car in front of H had passed by and did not stop, so why was H expected to do so? • Accordingly, H had not been negligent for failing to stop or slow down to allow the group to cross the road.

25. EHRARI v CURRY & ANOR (2007) • C had had approximately one second, the time from when E emerged from behind the parked car to the point of impact, in which to register E's presence and to take effective avoiding action • C, who had a responsibility to take reasonable care for the safety of pedestrians • A driver, in the exercise of reasonable care, and aware of the presence of the children on a pavement, was under an obligation to keep a careful watch at that point, all the more so when he had previously had to stop to let children cross over the road. • apportionment of responsibility 70 per cent to E and 30 per cent to C

26. MICHAEL VICTOR GAWLER v PAUL RAETTIG (2007) • R’s argument that Froom was only a suggestion failed. • Case was not exceptional, no justification for departure from 25% reduction in compensation as in Froom.

27. Child Restraints – the New Law • The Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts by Children in Front Seats) (Amendment) Regulation 2006 • The Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) (Amendment) Regulations 2006

28. RYAN BRAIN v YORKSHIRE RIDER LTD (2007) • Victim was entitled to recover cost of hiring replacement sports following accident. • The starting point was to establish the need to hire an equivalent vehicle. • Ordinarily the motorist would be able to hire an equivalent car to his own.

29. CRU Claims 2001-2007