Tail wags dog: contingency fees (and Part 36 and third party funding)

<p>*C.J.Q. 231 In 2000 I published an article calling for contingency fees to be introduced in litigation. It would be fair to say that this proposal did not meet with great enthusiasm. This was not really surprising as there has long been a dislike of contingency fees within litigation, particularly among the judiciary, based on the belief that they would subvert the relationship between lawyer and client and introduce incentives for bad behaviour amongst lawyers. My critique of this position and empirical evidence indicating that the problem was overstated1 was not sufficient against a general sense of unease about their use.What role might contingency fees have offered in 2000? At that time the prospects for access to justice for individual citizens, often in personal injury cases, were looking increasingly bleak. Costs were high and unpredictable. Entitlement to legal aid was reducing. Some other system was needed to prevent vindication of rights by individuals becoming purely theoretical.</p>