Office politics - the controversies of lawyer numbers
The legal profession, usually ignored by Whitehall, finds itself currently the stuff of political debate, mostly for negative reasons. Last week the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) unveiled its long-awaited policies on reforming civil litigation costs in a minor blaze of publicity about ambulance-chasing lawyers. Within days, that typical hotbed of tabloid controversy - The Law Society's annual statistical report - was enough to start a half-baked debate about the number of fat-cat lawyers exceeding those of police officers, supposedly off the back of the twin growth engines of legal aid and the Human Rights Act.
April 06, 2011 at 07:39 PM
3 minute read
The legal profession, usually ignored by Whitehall, finds itself currently the stuff of political debate, mostly for negative reasons. Last week the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) unveiled its long-awaited policies on reforming civil litigation costs in a minor blaze of publicity about ambulance-chasing lawyers.
Within days, that typical hotbed of tabloid controversy – The Law Society's annual statistical report – was enough to start a half-baked debate about the number of fat-cat lawyers exceeding those of police officers, supposedly off the back of the twin growth engines of legal aid and the Human Rights Act.
Mixed with this has been angst about what the growth of the legal profession says about the country and fears of an over-supply of students aspiring to be lawyers.
Some of the sniping is justified. The deal struck by the last Labour administration to allow success fees to be charged to the losing party undoubtedly led to some excesses from the claimant Bar. There was one particularly striking figure cited by the MoJ in announcing the costs shake-up: in 1999, claimant solicitors' costs were equivalent to 56% of the damages agreed in personal injury cases. By 2010, solicitors' costs had risen to 142% of received damages.
Overall, the reforms put forward look to be a considered rebalancing of the system away from a regime that fuelled abuse in a small part of the market but one that too often managed to drag the profession's name into the mud.
But it is easy to get carried away with such arguments. Government policy on the oft-discussed compensation culture in the UK seems to be that this is largely a myth – but it is believed to exist, and therefore action to curb it is justified. Yet the line on these issues is never easily drawn – one person's access to justice is another's compensation culture, it just depends which side of the claim you are on.
The debate about the size of the legal profession is a reheating of an old favourite. The logic is that lawyers don't produce anything, so it's worrying when we have so many of them. Well, they do produce something – they produce legal advice. And if we're going to start complaining about the tilt of the UK economy towards the services sector, it's a bit late in the day and entirely arbitrary to single out the legal profession (all this before you get into the export value of English law and the globally-recognised success of our law firms).
While it's true that there has been sustained expansion of the legal profession – it has more than tripled over the last 30 years – frenetic levels of legislative and regulatory activity by successive governments and the rise of the City as a financial centre have played a far greater role in this than fat-cat legal aid lawyers or a litigation culture. The profession will presumably wait for such controversies to pass – after all, it doesn't have much in the way of a coherent message to counter them.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSlaughter and May Leads As Government Buys Back £6 Billion of Military Homes
2 minute readLatAm Moves: DLA Piper Chile, Brazil’s Demarest Build Out Disputes Muscle
Kingsley Napley and Lord Pannick Spearhead Private Schools' Challenge to Government VAT Policy
Spain Loses Appeal as London Court Rejects Claim of Immunity in €101 Million Arbitral Award Enforcement
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250