The judgment is in and despite the apparent idiosyncrasies of challenging an Act which has already been repealed, it appears that common sense has prevailed (disbelieving mutterings to a minimum, please).

A year since alarm bells started ringing across the realms of costs and funding, the Supreme Court has returned a verdict to what was, in the end, a seemingly simple question: was the system of CFAs and ATE insurance in place under the Access to Justice Act regime compatible with the European Convention of Human Rights?

The answer, by majority, is yes (cue sighs of relief all round) and as a result, clients need not worry that their pre-LASPO premiums will come out of damages. Instead, losing parties remain liable to pay the success fees and ATE premiums, with it being decided that the regime strikes the right balance between different types of litigant. Indeed, whilst acknowledging that the system was not perfect, the legislation had the legitimate aim of securing the widest public access to legal services – in other words, everybody did a (reasonably) good job.

However, rather topically, the majority also drew attention to the fact that under the new Jackson regime, there remains winners and losers. There is no perfect solution, it was said, to the problem of how best to enhance access to justice in the absence of a system of legal aid. This is certainly true, although it seems that I am currently sat (literally if you saw the stack of paperwork under my desk) on a partial solution. Third-party funding with the safety net of an insurance policy is already allowing claimants to pursue cases they otherwise could not have done.

Oh, and guess what, we can organise that for you!

April showers, British frustration at Wimbledon, and public transport chaos – an eclectic mix of disappointments and annoyances that owing to their alarming regularity seem to have cemented themselves in the annual calendar. And now it seems that courtesy of the Solicitors Regulatory Authority we can now add PII policy coverage minimums to that circus.

That’s right, this week the SRA has reopened the inflammatory debate about minimum cover for professional indemnity insurance. Having had last year’s attempts at reducing the level of compulsory cover to £500,000 on any one claim rebutted, the regulators have got straight back on the horse. Specifically, this rounds proposals are flirting with the idea of removing the compulsory requirement for insurance for more sophisticated clients (think conveyancing here), and even included the option of ditching the minimum altogether. The disbelieving among you can see for yourselves: SRA consultations/discussion-papers

Now call me sceptical (it appears the older members of the office are already rubbing off on me) but such proposals seem to be on a collision course with the same concerns that scuppered last year’s suggestions. Amid all the talk of appropriateness, flexibility and lower costs, it is important not to lose sight of the fundamental reason for PII minimums: client protection. The client is the most important, after all!

So it’s my first day here at QLP, as I swap the pages of academic texts for the world of insurance. It must be said that the phrase “in at the deep end” may spring to mind to some – my writing on 1960s American sport (history to some of us) not providing much preparation for the assault of premiums, proposals and policies that are certain to come my way over the next 3 months!

What are you doing here then, I hear you say? Well, in the summer between my law conversion and (prospective) career I decided to follow my fellow graduates into The City for a dose of commercial experience, and this time Insurance is the golden ticket. Indeed, as the Professional Indemnity Campaign ramps us ahead of the rush of October renewals I have been selected as the extra ‘team-mate’ to come on board and join the team.

Like Andy Murray walking out at Wimbledon this week, or the crews at Henley, it is a mix of nervousness and excitement. One thing that is for certain is that the opportunity to turn my hand towards broking will be an invaluable experience, and a great insight into the realms of insurance.

Here’s hoping that my skills and previous experience will allow me to contribute towards the work being undertaken here at QLP, generate some business, and have some fun along the way – score an ‘ace’ as Andy would say.

This apocryphal expression, attributed to ancient China, sometimes referred to as the ‘Chinese Curse’ seems particularly apt at the moment for the NHS.

As our population ages, treatments become more sophisticated, the cost of medical care will continue to increase. How does our society pay for free at the point of delivery treatment? Politicians tie themselves knots on how to reform the NHS without breaking political taboos. Good luck to them!

On any given day, the media is filled with stories and commentary both praising and criticising the NHS, shining a light onto its successes and failures. With such monolithic institutions, transparency and accountability is in the public interest. The idea that an entity such as the NHS is above the normal expectations of openness and honesty is just not acceptable to us these days.

Over the years we have seen some appalling situations made worse by the defensive attitude taken by the NHS and their lawyers. This makes the work of AvMA and other patient groups all the more important in supporting both individuals and those that seek to support them.

We are keen exhibiters at AvMA’s conferences and tend to do about two a year. We will be in Leeds this Friday (26^th). So please come along and say ‘hello’ and we would be delighted to tell you all about our new clinical negligence disbursement funding scheme (See clinical-negligence-disbursement-funding). It is all about how to help clients protect afford the cost of litigation when there is no recourse left but legal action. We can both insure a case against loss as well provide monies on ongoing bases to pay for disbursements.

We know how tiring tramping around a conference can be so visit our sponsored juice bar and have a refreshing drink on us.

We all knew it would not be long before Michael Gove made his mark as Justice Secretary and his speech at the Legatum Institute provides our first insight into what the new Justice Secretary aims to do. For those who, like me, do not know about the Institute, it is an international think tank which focuses on themes such as the interplay of capitalism and democracy and seeks an understanding of how national success can be achieved. Worthy.

For our ATE market the thought of further upheaval following LASPOA is not welcome, particularly as certain aspects of the reforms have yet to be fully assessed. (Please see our previous blog generational-change). But it can be expected that as a man who allegedly had a poster of Marx (or Lenin?) in his Westminster office as education secretary, Michael Gove was never going to be idle in his new role as top dog at the MoJ. He is a radical Tory and arguably a champion of the people depending on your political persuasion. So what might be in store for the legal world?

In our civil litigation sector we have seen a substantial backlog develop, in for example medical negligence cost assessments, with ATE insurers expending considerable sums to defend their premiums whether under the new or old system. The court system is creaking under the strain of claims and cost cutting on the MoJ budget does not suggest new resources will be made available. Mr Gove acknowledges the issue of funding in a general sense with a particular focus on the criminal justice system. The fact that access to justice favours those with wealth is inherently not in the spirit of an even handed justice system.

So there is a vote winning ‘nod’ to the hoary chestnut of the system letting down the victims of crime and much handwringing over the inefficiencies of our anachronistic Victorian court system. No prudent person would object to reform of either of those two ‘problems’, although Government modernisation tends to involve expensive computer systems that don’t work.

The commentary, that we here at QLP have been much intrigued to read, concentrates on Mr Gove’s remarks about how the wealthy side of the legal profession should do more, pro bono or via financial contribution, to support the non-profit but publically important elements of the justice system. This is a rehash of the ‘Big Society’ concept but should society have to rely on the availability of charity for something as important as The Law?

He is undoubtedly right that the status quo is indefensible but we need to see more detail as to how his ideas might work in practice. There is a well founded suspicion of change in the legal world, radically darting from one change to the next can have unforeseen consequences. Following the Woolf Reforms and with the benefit of hindsight it was entirely predictable that claimant solicitors would relish with gusto CFAs and a compensation culture would rocket, leading to the need for more reforms.

Being a fully paid up member of the South Eastern Rail’s commuting fraternity I have seen steep ticket rises (sympathy please) as tax payer funded subsidies have been withdrawn, so it seems that the Government wishes to freeze (or cut) current monies being spent on justice and explore other ways of finding the needed funds. In the insurance industry, we pay various levies for regulation, FOS, Financial Compensation Scheme and Insurance Premium Tax so maybe the Justice Secretary will explore funding possibilities but then again you can only hike courts fees by so much.

A radical Justice Secretary appointed at a time of radical change, it will be fascinating to see what happens next. We just hope that civil litigation is not in the spot light this time round.