Rule 4(2)(a) states that with respect to all “specific proceedings” under the CCFA, the legal representative must “inform the customer of the circumstances in which the customer may be required to bear the costs of the legal representative.” A consultation was held in July 2000 on a possible system of collective agreements. The Government has just published its findings after the consultation process in the document “Collective Conditional Fees” (Lord Chancellor`s Department, September 2000). The resulting collective pricing policy will allow for economies of scale, reduce the regulatory burden for businesses and membership of organisations, and continue to support their policy of improving the competitiveness of legal service providers. The aim is to set up a system for entering into agreements between mass providers of legal services and large consumers on behalf of themselves and others, in order to “widen the pathways to the courts for thousands of citizens”. To Reg. 3 (2) (a) “an agreement may be a conditional collective fee agreement, whether or not the funder is a client”. The government is now proposing to remove the principle of compensation for cost assessment, regardless of how a case is funded. Section 31 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 will come into force to amend section 51 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 to this effect, and the Rules of Justice provide that the receiving party may receive reasonable and proportionate costs if additional liability is invoked, regardless of the terms of the contract. The original rules only allowed contingency fee agreements in personal injury claims, proceedings related to the management or liquidation of a company or proceedings before the European Commission or the Court of Human Rights.
Any premiums for success fees and/or legal protection had to be paid by the client, usually on any damages received. The pass fee was capped at a maximum of 100% of the normal (or basic) fee. Since then, the maximum success fee is 100%. There was no cap on the total amount of the pass fee, even though the Law Society, as it was at the time, recommended a 25% cap and many lawyers complied with it. Since 1 April 2013, England and Wales may be subject to possible royalties or damages-based agreements (DBA) for disputed works (disputes or arbitrations). This means that lawyers in this jurisdiction can conduct disputes and arbitration proceedings against part of the damage. While this is true if the funder is also the client, it may be more important if it is not, as it offers protection to clients who might assume residual liability, for example if the funder does not provide full compensation. The provisions of the various contingency fee settlements which, prior to the signing of a contingency fee agreement, require specific information to the client, for example with regard to appropriate financing methods, are deleted. . . .