Trending Now

All Articles

3761 Articles
Announcements Consumer

The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding Applauds Governor Newsom for Signing AB 931

By John Freund |

The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding Applauds Governor Newsom for Signing AB 931, the California Consumer Legal Funding Act

The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC) expressed its deep appreciation to Governor Gavin Newsom for signing Assembly Bill 931 -- The California Consumer Legal Funding Act -- into law. Authored by Assemblymember Ash Kalra (D–San Jose, 25th District), this landmark legislation establishes thoughtful and comprehensive regulation of Consumer Legal Funding in California—ensuring consumer protection, transparency, and access to financial stability while legal claims move through the judicial process.

The law, which takes effect January 1, 2026, provides consumers with much-needed financial support during the often lengthy resolution of their legal claims, helping them cover essential living expenses such as rent, mortgage payments, and utilities.

“This legislation represents a major step forward for California consumers,” said Eric Schuller, President of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding. “AB 931 strikes the right balance between protecting consumers and preserving access to a financial product that helps individuals stay afloat while they await justice. Consumer Legal Funding truly is about funding lives, not litigation.”
Key Consumer Protections Under AB 931

The California Consumer Legal Funding Act includes robust safeguards that prohibit funding companies from engaging in improper practices and mandate full transparency for consumers.

The Act Prohibits Consumer Legal Funding Companies from:

• Offering or colluding to provide funding as an inducement for a consumer to terminate their attorney and hire another.
• Colluding with or assisting an attorney in bringing fabricated or bad-faith claims.
• Paying or offering referral fees, commissions, or other forms of compensation to attorneys or law firms for consumer referrals.
• Accepting referral fees or other compensation from attorneys or law firms.
• Exercising any control or influence over the conduct or resolution of a legal claim.
• Referring consumers to specific attorneys or law firms (except via a bar association referral service).

The Act Requires Consumer Legal Funding Companies to:

• Provide clear, written contracts stating:
• The amount of funds provided to the consumer.
• A full itemization of any one-time charges.
• The maximum total amount remaining, including all fees and charges.
• A clear explanation of how and when charges accrue.
• A payment schedule showing all amounts due every 180 days, ensuring consumers understand their maximum financial obligation from the outset.
• Offer consumers a five-business-day right to cancel without penalty.
• Maintain no role in deciding whether, when, or for how much a legal claim is settled.

With AB 931, California joins a growing list of states that have enacted clear and fair regulation recognizing Consumer Legal Funding as a non-recourse, consumer-centered financial service—distinct from litigation financing and designed to help individuals meet their household needs while pursuing justice.

“We commend Assemblymember Kalra for his leadership and Governor Newsom for signing this important legislation,” said Schuller. “This act ensures that Californians who need temporary financial relief during their legal journey can do so safely, transparently, and responsibly.”

About the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC)

The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC) is a national association representing companies that provide Consumer Legal Funding, non-recourse financial assistance that helps consumers meet essential expenses while awaiting the resolution of a legal claim. ARC advocates for fair regulation, transparency, and consumer choice across the United States.

Case Developments Commercial

Elite Colleges Challenge Lawyers’ Litigation Funding in Major Antitrust Case

By John Freund |

Elite U.S. universities embroiled in a high-stakes antitrust class action are now targeting the use of third‑party litigation funding by plaintiffs’ counsel in a bid to derail class certification. At issue is whether a lead firm’s reliance on external financing renders it “inadequate” under class action rules — a novel approach that raises fresh procedural and policy questions.

An article in Reuters notes the the suit alleges that Cornell, Penn, MIT, Georgetown, Notre Dame and others favored wealthy applicants over students needing financial aid, plaintiffs’ counsel (led by Gilbert Litigators & Counselors, or GLC) is facing attacks over transparency and risk allocation. The universities contend that GLC mischaracterized its financial exposure by not fully disclosing its funding arrangements. GLC responds that it only uses outside funding for a portion of its fees (covering 40% of its own, and under 16% of the aggregate) and that no court has previously held that use of funding makes class counsel inadequate. A judge has already found the funding documents “potentially relevant” to the certification motion, underscoring the stakes.

Legal commentators call this a new twist in class litigation — rather than questioning the merits or fairness of funding, defendants are now probing its procedural footprint. The case also dovetails with a broader trend: litigation funders are becoming more visible and controversial, particularly when their support is used by class‑action counsel. Reuters Meanwhile, in adjacent news, law firms are consolidating and AI‑driven tools for plaintiffs’ practices are attracting investor capital — further reshaping the economics of litigation.

This challenge could force courts nationwide to reinterpret adequacy standards in class actions, potentially chilling the use of external funding. It may also provoke funders, defense firms, and plaintiffs to recalibrate disclosure rules and risk-sharing norms across major litigation.

Commercial Special Features

How Nera Capital Reached $150M in Investor Returns

By John Freund |
Aisling Byrne is a Director at Nera Capital, a leading litigation funder with a global footprint, where she plays a central role in driving the firm’s growth and strategic initiatives. With extensive experience in litigation funding and investor relations, Aisling focuses on building strong partnerships with law firms, funders, and stakeholders while overseeing the operational efficiency of the firm. Her leadership combines a pragmatic, solutions-driven approach with a deep understanding of both consumer and commercial claims.
Below is our LFJ Conversation with Aisling Byrne:
Nera recently passed $100 million in investor repayments, citing a “data-driven approach to case selection and risk management” as a key factor. What specific data-centric approaches have contributed the most impact?
At Nera, we see data not as a supporting tool but as the backbone of our decision-making. Our proprietary models assess thousands of variables across historical case outcomes, jurisdictional nuances, law firm performance metrics, and even the efficiency of courts. By feeding this data into predictive analytics, we can more accurately model recovery timelines and probabilities. What’s been most impactful is combining quantitative scoring with qualitative oversight—data helps us remove emotional bias, while our team of experienced professionals ensures the analysis is grounded in real-world legal and enforcement dynamics. That dual approach has allowed us to deliver consistent investor repayments while scaling responsibly.
Nera has now reached $150m in investor returns.
You secured a £20 million funding line from Fintex Capital, bolstering Nera’s ability to support consumer claims and expand funding sources. How do such funding lines influence your ability to take on riskier or less predictable claims, including those where pre-judgment attachment might play a role in enforcement?
Regardless of how many new funding lines we secure, it doesn’t mean our approach changes. In the consumer division, our strategy of supporting proven, legal precedent set claim types and claim selection criteria remains exactly the same—and that high bar has been fundamental to our success and our ability to deliver substantial repayments to investors. The additional capital simply allows us to scale what we already do well, without diluting our standards.
For investors with a different criteria, the commercial division may be better suited. Those cases can sometimes have less predictable timelines, but also offer higher potential returns. In this way, we can align capital sources and timelines with the most appropriate claim types, ensuring consistency in performance while broadening the opportunities we can pursue.
Many financialized legal claims carry the potential for post-judgment or post-award interest and/or enforcement costs. Could you speak to how Nera evaluates the enforceability of judgments, including the likelihood of successful asset attachments (domestic or abroad), in structuring returns for investors?
Enforceability is as important as the merits of the case itself. A favourable judgment is meaningless without a realistic pathway to recovery. At Nera, we always seek to avoid claims where enforceability is in doubt. Before committing, we carry out a comprehensive enforceability assessment, which includes mapping the defendant’s asset profile, reviewing local enforcement regimes, and stress-testing recovery prospects. This rigorous upfront analysis is a cornerstone of our underwriting approach, and in our 15 years of business, we have not experienced enforcement issues—a strong validation of the discipline and prudence built into our process.
Given that litigation finance is often argued to be an “uncorrelated asset class,” how does Nera balance its portfolio of consumer mass claims, commercial disputes, and potential cross-border enforcement matters to provide both stability and high upside for investors?
Diversification is central to our portfolio construction. Consumer claims tend to generate steady, repeatable outcomes that provide stability and heavy settlement cash flows. Commercial disputes, on the other hand, carry larger ticket sizes and higher upside, but sometimes involve greater complexity and longer timelines.
When it comes to cross-border enforcement matters, we take a very cautious stance. We look to avoid supporting claims where enforceability could present difficulties and always conduct an upfront enforcement assessment. By working with leading lawyers and advisers in each jurisdiction, we ensure risks are fully evaluated and mitigated before committing capital.
Because these different claim types are not only uncorrelated with traditional markets but also with one another—thanks to variations in claim structure, jurisdiction, and duration—we can actively balance short-term liquidity against long-term growth. This layered approach allows us to deliver both stability and meaningful upside, while staying true to the uncorrelated nature of litigation finance.
 
As Nera has expanded into the Netherlands and joined the European Litigation Funders Association (ELFA), what regulatory, ethical, or procedural hurdles have you confronted? How do these shape your funding models?
Europe presents both opportunities and challenges. In the Netherlands, collective redress mechanisms are still evolving, and with that comes heightened regulatory and judicial scrutiny. By joining ELFA, we’ve committed to the highest standards of transparency, governance, and ethical practice, which we see not as a constraint but as a competitive advantage.
One hurdle has been adapting our funding structures to meet jurisdiction-specific requirements, such as disclosure obligations and court oversight of funder involvement. These challenges have made us more deliberate in how we design our funding contracts and financial models, ensuring they are robust, compliant, and aligned with the long-term sustainability of the sector. Ultimately, we welcome this direction—it elevates the industry and builds trust with investors, law firms, and claimants alike.
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Bloomberg Law Cites Legal Funding Journal Podcast in Commentary on Funder Transparency

By John Freund |

A recent episode of the Legal Funding Journal podcast was quoted in a Bloomberg Law article on funder control of cases. In the episode, Stuart Hills and Guy Nielson, Co-Founders of RiverFleet, discussed the thorny topic this way: “What do funders care about? They certainly do care about settlements and that should be recognized. They do care about who is the legal counsel and that should be recognized. They care about the way the case is being run. They care about discontinuing the legal action and they care about wider matters affecting the funder.”

The provocative new commentary from Bloomberg Law reignites the longstanding debate over transparency in third-party litigation funding (TPLF), asserting that many funders exercise considerable control over litigation outcomes—despite public disavowals to the contrary.

In the article, Alex Dahl of Lawyers for Civil Justice argues that recent contract analyses expose mechanisms by which funders can shape or even override key litigation decisions, including settlement approval, counsel selection, and pursuit of injunctive relief. The piece singles out Burford Capital, the sector’s largest player, highlighting its 2022 bid to block a client’s settlement in the high-profile Sysco antitrust matter, even as it publicly claimed to be a passive investor. Such contradictions, Dahl contends, underscore a pressing need for mandatory disclosure of litigation funding arrangements under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The analysis points to contracts that allegedly allow funders to halt cash flow mid-litigation, demand access to all documents—including sensitive or protected materials—and require plaintiffs to pay sanctions regardless of who caused the misconduct. Courts and opposing parties are typically blind to these provisions, as the agreements are often shielded from disclosure.

While funders like Burford maintain that control provisions are invoked only in “extraordinary circumstances,” Dahl’s article ends with a call for judicial mandates requiring transparency, likening funder involvement to insurers, who must disclose coverage under current civil rules.

For legal funders, the takeaway is clear: scrutiny is intensifying. As the industry matures and high-profile disputes mount, the push for standardized disclosure rules may accelerate. The central question ahead—how to balance transparency with funder confidentiality—remains a defining challenge for the sector.

Case Developments Commercial

Siltstone vs. Walia Dispute Moves to Arbitration

By John Freund |

Siltstone Capital and its former general counsel, Manmeet (“Mani”) Walia, have agreed to resolve their dispute via arbitration rather than through the Texas state court system—a move that transforms a high‑stakes conflict over trade secrets, opportunity diversion, and fund flow into a more opaque, confidential proceeding.

An article in Law360 notes that Siltstone had accused Walia of misusing proprietary information, diverting deal opportunities to his new venture, and broadly leveraging confidential data to compete unfairly. Walia, in turn, has denied wrongdoing and contended that Siltstone had consented—or even encouraged—his departure and new venture, pointing to a release executed upon his exit and a waiver of non‑compete obligations.

The agreement to arbitrate was reported on October 7, 2025. From a governance lens, this shift signals a preference for dispute resolution that may better preserve business continuity during fundraising cycles, especially in sectors like litigation finance where timing, investor confidence, and deal pipelines are critical.

However, arbitration also concentrates pressure into narrower scopes: document production, expert analyses (especially of trade secret scope, lost opportunity causation, and valuation), and the arbitrators’ evaluation. One point to watch is whether interim relief—protecting data, limiting competitive conduct, or preserving the status quo—will emerge in the arbitration or via court‑ordered relief prior to final proceedings.

Case Developments Commercial

ASB Agrees to NZ$135.6M Settlement in Banking Class Action

By John Freund |

ASB has confirmed it will pay NZ$135,625,000 to resolve the Banking Class Action focused on alleged disclosure breaches under the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA), subject to approval by the High Court. The settlement was announced October 7, 2025, but ASB did not admit liability as part of the deal.

1News reports that the class action—covering both ASB and ANZ customers—alleges that the banks failed to provide proper disclosure to borrowers during loan variations. As a result, during periods of non‑compliance, customers claim the banks were not entitled to collect interest and fees (under CCCFA sections 22, 99, and 48).

The litigation has been jointly funded by CASL (Australia) and LPF Group (New Zealand). The parallel claim against ANZ remains active and is not part of ASB’s settlement.

Prior to this announcement, plaintiffs had publicly floated a more ambitious settlement in the NZ$300m+ range, which both ASB and ANZ had rejected—labeling it a “stunt” or political gambit tied to ongoing legislative changes to CCCFA.

Legal and regulatory observers see this deal as a strategic move by ASB: it caps its exposure and limits litigation risk without conceding wrongdoing, while leaving open the possibility of continued proceedings against ANZ. The arrangement still requires High Court consent before going ahead.

Commercial

What’s the Smartest Growth Strategy for Law Firms in 2025? Client Service

By Kris Altiere |

The following article was contributed by Kris Altiere, US Head of Marketing for Moneypenny.

The legal sector is already operating against a backdrop of economic unpredictability, rising client expectations, and fast-moving advances in technology. For firms of all sizes, but especially small and mid-sized practices, the pressing question is: what’s the smartest and most sustainable path to growth?

The answer isn’t a new practice management system or a radical shift in service lines. It’s something more fundamental yet far more powerful: client service.

And not the kind that gets lost in endless phone menus or delegated to faceless chatbots. We’re talking about human-led, AI-supported service that’s fast, personal, and friction-free. In today’s legal market, client service isn’t just an operational necessity. It’s a growth strategy.

Trust as the new currency of growth

Clients navigating complex legal challenges are often anxious, risk-averse, and under pressure. In that environment, trust becomes the currency that drives engagement and retention.

It’s no longer enough for firms to offer technically sound legal advice at competitive rates. Clients want to feel heard, supported, and valued throughout their journey. Firms that can embed this into every interaction, whether it’s the initial consultation or a late-night update, are the ones that win loyalty, referrals, and long-term revenue.

This plays to the strengths of small and mid-sized firms. With leaner teams and flatter hierarchies, they’re often more agile and capable of delivering the personal, tailored support clients crave. A partner who picks up the phone, knows the client’s name, and understands the case context instantly builds credibility. In 2025, that credibility is the bridge between staying relevant and achieving meaningful growth.

Smart tech, human empathy

Yes, AI is everywhere. But the firms using it most effectively are those that integrate it where it adds real value while also keeping the human touch where it matters most.

AI can streamline administrative work, speed up intake, and automate repetitive tasks like document review or appointment scheduling. But it can’t replace the reassurance of a lawyer who listens carefully to a client in distress, or the receptionist who ensures urgent calls are routed to the right person immediately.

The winning formula is balance: let AI handle the heavy lifting, while people deliver the moments that build trust. Imagine a litigation funder using AI to flag cases requiring immediate attention, while a trained case manager provides the nuanced support clients need. Or a family law practice using chatbots for document collection but ensuring sensitive discussions are handled by a real lawyer with empathy and tact.

That combination of efficiency plus empathy is what cuts through the noise.

Service as a growth engine

When client service is done well in law firms, it doesn’t just fix problems it drives growth. Every answered call, prompt update, or thoughtful follow-up is a touchpoint that builds brand equity and deepens relationships. 

Great client service is about being reactive, for example, answering questions, but also it is about being proactive, through spotting patterns, identifying sales opportunities, and deepening client relationships. Your service team becomes a source of insight and influence. And often, they’re the difference between a one-time transaction and long-term loyalty.

Take funding conversations as an example. A firm that keeps clients informed on timelines, explains financing options clearly, and checks in regularly is positioning itself not just as a legal advisor but as a trusted partner. That kind of proactive, client-focused service often creates opportunities for cross-referrals and repeat work.

And thanks to modular, scalable tools—from virtual receptionist to live chat—these capabilities are no longer exclusive to the Am Law 100. Boutique firms and regional practices now have access to the same client service infrastructure as the industry’s largest players.

Connection builds resilience

With margins tight and competition fierce, the strongest legal practices in 2025 will be those that build loyalty through connection. That doesn’t mean over-promising or relying on outdated customer care models. It means meeting people where they are, and offering support that’s proactive, consistent and personal.

It also means supporting teams. When lawyers and staff are backed by smart systems that free them to focus on meaningful work, morale improves. And in a small or mid-sized firm, morale directly fuels performance.

Client service is where growth, loyalty and operational resilience meet. For practices looking to thrive this year, the message is clear: don’t see service as a back-office function. See it as a growth engine, a brand differentiator, and one of the most valuable assets a law firm has.

Because in a market full of uncertainty, the one thing that’s certain is this: customers will always remember how you made them feel. And that feeling might just be the difference between surviving and scaling.

Announcements Commercial

Harris Pogust Joins Bryant Park Capital as Senior Advisor

By John Freund |

Bryant Park Capital (“BPC”) a leading middle market investment bank and market leader in the litigation finance sector, is pleased to announce that Harris Pogust has joined the firm as a Senior Advisor.  Harris (Mr. Pogust) is one of the best known and prominent attorneys in the mass tort and class action fields, he was the founding partner and Chairman of Pogust Goodhead worldwide until early 2024 and is currently working with Trial Lawyers for a Better Tomorrow, a charity Harris founded, to help children reach their educational potential all over the world.  Harris’ life work has been to deliver justice for those who have been damaged or injured through the negligence or bad faith of others.

“We are thrilled to have Harris as part of our team.  His knowledge, experience and relationships in the litigation finance sector are of great value to Bryant Park and our clients.  As the litigation finance world becomes more competitive, complex and challenging, having an expert like Harris on our team is invaluable,” said Joel Magerman, Managing Partner of Bryant Park.

Harris’ efforts, in conjunction with Bryant Park will focus on assisting law firms and funders in developing strategies to more efficiently fund their operations and cases and assist them in establishing the right relationships for future growth.  Harris commented, “I have been fortunate to have been a practicing attorney and partner in law firms for over 35 years focused on building and growing a worldwide book of business in the class action/mass tort field.  That required significant capital and throughout my career I have raised over $1 billion for my firms.  I have learned what works and what doesn’t.  I have seen both the risks and rewards in this industry.  I look forward to being able to work with law firms and funders to assist them in putting the right strategies in place with Bryant Park and bringing capital and liquidity to help them grow and flourish.”

About Bryant Park Capital

Bryant Park Capital is an investment bank providing capital raising, M&A and corporate finance advisory services to emerging growth and middle market public and private companies. BPC has deep expertise and a diversified, well-founded breadth of experience in a number of sectors, including specialty finance & financial services. BPC has raised various forms of credit, growth equity, and assisted in mergers and acquisitions for its clients. Our professionals have completed more than 400 assignments representing an aggregate transaction value of over $30 billion.

For more information about Bryant Park Capital, please visit www.bryantparkcapital.com.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

20 Legal Firms and Groups Calling on UK Government for Urgent Legislation to Reverse PACCAR

Despite a government-commissioned independent review recommending priority standalone legislation to reverse PACCAR, the Government has failed to act, the letter to the Lord Chancellor says.

“As a highly respected member of the legal community, the Prime Minister rightly often speaks of ‘following the evidence’.

“The independent experts have provided the evidence that this issue needs fixing, yet this Government refuses to act, delaying justice for some and denying justice for future claimants.

“We call on the Government to act swiftly and legislate for the sake of claimants and the reputation of the UK’s justice system.”

The letter follows earlier calls on the Government from claimants to reverse PACCAR urgently, including from Sir Alan Bates , truck hauliers and the lead claimant in a mass action case against six water suppliers for alleged customer overcharging.

This comes amid a drop off in collective proceeding cases in the Competition Appeal Tribunal this year according to Solomonic, as reported in the Financial Times this morning (link). 

Neil Purslow, Chairman of the Executive Committee of ILFA, said:

“We’ve been warning successive governments for more than two years about the potential impact this uncertainty will have on consumers and small businesses’ ability to access justice.

“These figures show that stark reality. Meritorious claims are going unfunded, alleged wrongdoers are unchallenged and competition - one of the great drivers of growth - is not being enforced.

“The Government must act before this small trickle of cases dries up altogether.”

Martyn Day, co-founder of Leigh Day and co-president of the Collective Redress Lawyers Association (CORLA) which signed the letter, said: 

“This issue has created a great deal of uncertainty that is blocking access to justice for ordinary people taking on powerful corporations accused of wrongdoing. 

“The system simply cannot work without litigation funding, and this is a timely reminder to government to fix this issue, and urgently.”

In July 2023, the Supreme Court ruled in the PACCAR judgment that litigation finance agreements were unenforceable unless they met the requirements of Damages-Based Agreements, rendering many ongoing cases invalid and causing delays in the pursuit of justice for millions of claimants. 

The Civil Justice Council (CJC) concluded its comprehensive review of the funding sector four months ago, after the Government had promised to review what legislation might be needed to address PACCAR once the review was complete. The CJC’s review urged priority standalone legislation to reverse the damaging effects of PACCAR. Yet, despite earlier promises, the Government has said the review would merely “help to inform the approach to potential reforms” in “due course”. 

The letter highlights how the Government’s continued inaction contradicts the Prime Minister's own commitment to "following the evidence”.

The signatories, representing firms including Mishcon de Reya, Stewarts, Freeths, and Scott+Scott UK, highlight the “pivotal role” of group actions. They call on the Government to “act swiftly” to adopt the CJC’s recommendation to reverse PACCAR to protect the reputation of the UK’s justice system. The firms also include those who have provided legal representation for Sir Alan Bates, hauliers ripped off by truck manufacturers (link), and leaseholders fighting secret insurance charges (link).

Since the ruling, crucial investment into the UK economy is rapidly being lost. Litigation funders like Burford Capital are taking their funds elsewhere, with CEO Chris Bogart, stating his firm has begun ‘migrating some dispute resolution away from London’, following PACCAR. 

Litigation funding enables claimants with limited means to access justice, enabling landmark cases including those brought by the subpostmasters, retail workers, and small business owners, to hold multinational corporations accused of serious wrongdoing to account, while promoting fair, competitive markets and securing investment into the UK.

--

Below is the letter to the Lord Chancellor, in its entirety:

Rt Hon David Lammy MP
Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice
Ministry of Justice
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ

Dear Lord Chancellor,

Congratulations on your new role as Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary. While we recognise the many challenges you'll face stepping into this role, we wanted to highlight a critical issue that is undermining access to justice and stifling investment in the UK's legal system. But it's an issue with a quick and simple fix.

Group actions in the UK play a pivotal role in enabling individuals to come together to bring claims against those accused of wrongdoing - often multinational corporations with significant resources. It has helped claimants like the subpostmasters, shopworkers, retail investors, and small business owners access justice.

The regime is underpinned by claimants’ abilities to access finance - often through litigation funding where funders provide financial backing for an agreed return of any settlement. However, as you know, the future of this mechanism and the regime is under threat thanks to the disruptive effects of the 2023 PACCAR judgment, and subsequent challenges to the enforceability of funding arrangements.

Claimants with limited means are struggling to access funding to bring their cases, and investment from funders is draining away from the UK legal system.

The Government promised to review what legislation might be needed to address PACCAR once the Civil Justice Council’s review had concluded. 

The CJC reported back 4 months ago with a thorough and nuanced perspective on the funding sector. As members of the legal community, we are sympathetic to sensible reforms and are reassured that the Government is considering these carefully. 

But one unequivocal and pressing recommendation from the CJC was for urgent standalone legislation to reverse the effects of PACCAR to end the uncertainty damaging access to justice. Disappointingly, the Government has so far failed to hear that call, saying only that the review would “help to inform the approach to potential reforms” in “due course”, despite its previous promises.

As a highly respected member of the legal community, the Prime Minister rightly often speaks of “following the evidence”. The independent experts have provided the evidence that this issue needs fixing, yet this Government refuses to act, delaying justice for some and denying justice for future claimants. 

We call on the Government to act swiftly and legislate for the sake of claimants and the reputation of the UK’s justice system.

Signed

The Collective Redress Lawyers Association (CORLA).
Stewarts
Group Actions & Competition, Stephenson Harwood
Scott+Scott UK LLP
Backhouse Jones
Freeths 
Humphries Kerstetter LLP
Mishcon de Reya LLP
Velitor Law
Milberg London LLP
Fladgate LLP
Geradin Partners
Harcus Parker
Tim Constable, Bates Wells
Phi Finney McDonald
Keidan Harrison LLP
Asserson
Leigh Day
Cooke, Young & Keidan LLP
KP Law