Trending Now
Regulatory Issues

Outside Ownership of Law Firms—A Growing Controversy

By John Freund |

One Florida committee has suggested changes to its policies on law firm ownership. So far, lawyers are sharply divided. While the Florida committee does acknowledge that many lawyers are resisting reforms in this area, that hasn’t dissuaded them from pursuing it.

Please log in to view membership only content
Log In Register

Premium

View All
Announcements Commercial People Moves

Audley Capital Appoints Rick Gregory to Executive Board

By Harry Moran |

In a post on LinkedIn, Audley Capital announced the appointment of Rick Gregory to its executive board. Gregory serves as a Director for Audley and is a legal funding specialist, “with over 28 years of experience in legal funding, law firms, insurance, and volume litigation.”

The announcement highlighted Gregory’s vast experience across the legal sector, saying that “his profound understanding of the market, regulatory landscape, and commercial requirements for all stakeholders has paved the way for the implementation of litigation funding across some of the largest volume schemes in the UK.”In addition to his work on the executive board Audley, Gregory is also the co-founder of Legal Intelligence, a legal tech company that provides a range of AI solutions to “drive efficiency, innovation, and scalability, empowering professionals to gain a competitive edge and achieve sustainable growth and client delight.”

Case Developments Commercial

CAT Approves £25 Million Settlement in Boundary Fares Class Action

By Harry Moran |

As LFJ reported last month, the parties in the Stagecoach South Western Trains class action had reached a settlement agreement, with SSWT agreeing to pay up to £25 million to eligible class members who were overcharged on their rail fares by the train operator.

An article in City A.M. provides an update on the case, as the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has approved the proposed settlement. Now that it has been approved by the tribunal, class members will be able to register and submit a claim for payment in order to receive compensation from the settlement. The claim period will last for six months, from 10 July 2024 to 10 January 2025.

Within four months of the claim period ending, the class representative will then provide SSWT with the total amount to be claimed, up to the total of £25 million agreed in the settlement. SSWT will then have a period of 21 days following receipt of this information to pay the class representative the ‘notified damages sum’.

The class action was filed by Charles Lyndon, with Woodsford Group providing the funding for the litigation. 

Steven Friel, Woodsford’s CEO said: “This settlement approval confirms Woodsford as the most active and the most successful litigation funder in the CAT collective proceedings regime. Our actions have resulted in the first two, and as yet only, court-approved settlements in the regime.”The full collective settlement approval order from the CAT can be read here.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Alan Bates: Claims that Funders Exploited Postmasters are “Absolute Nonsense”

By Harry Moran |

The introduction and subsequent debate of the government’s Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill has spurred a renewed debate over the role of third-party funding in the UK legal system, with both sides of this public relations battle pointing to the Post Office Horizon case as a key example that supports their arguments.

In an opinion piece for The Guardian, Alan Bates argues that the sub-postmasters successful fight for justice “is being twisted by those who don’t want to see its like again”. In the article, Bates pushes back on the idea that Therium, the litigation funder who supported the case against the Post Office, exploited the sub-postmasters or hijacked the litigation for their own financial gain. Bates decries these claims and describes them as “absolute nonsense.”

Bates explains that contrary to the notion that the sub-postmasters were hoodwinked by funders, they were well aware of the terms of the funding arrangement and that “it was the only option” available to combat huge financial advantage held by the Post Office. Furthermore, Bates highlights that both Therium and the sub-postmaster’s lawyers “even took a haircut on their returns to ensure the victims group received some return as they went on to pursue the truth through further court cases, enabling convictions to be overturned and real financial redress to be sought.”

In placing the blame for these types of claims being amplified, Bates points the finger at organisations such as Fair Civil Justice and other “corporate interests”, who he argues have misrepresented the role that litigation funding played in securing the sub-postmasters’ access to justice. Similarly, Bates argues that calls for a cap on litigation funders’ fees would have a detrimental rather than beneficial effect, pointing out that in his case it would have only “provided a target for the Post Office to aim for to achieve its stated goal of forcing us to “give up”.”

Bates closes his opinion piece by calling on the Civil Justice Council to place “claimants’ experiences and interests front and centre”, as it conducts its review of litigation funding.