Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to Thread
Guest, we'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the
Diabetes Forum Survey 2024 »
Home
Forums
Living with Diabetes
Jobs and Employment
I want to sue a cruise ship company
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="catapillar" data-source="post: 1094748" data-attributes="member: 32394"><p>"No win no fee" does not equal pro bono.</p><p></p><p>"No win no fee" = funding by conditional fee agreement (CFA) / damages based agreement wherein the agreement is: if you lose, we don't charge you and if you win, we will recover our fee from the other side. In litigation, the rule is the losing party pays, so if you lose you will be liable for the costs of successful defendant. This is why when you sign a CFA you usually also take out an insurance policy to cover the costs of the other side should you lose. CFAs are a gamble for the claimant's solicitor because if they lose, they will not recover their costs. However, because of this gamble, they will be allowed to charge a success fee if they win (in the uk) this can be up to 100% of the fee, so, say there was an amazingly cheap litigation where the claimant was funded by CFA and won with costs of £10,000 +100% success fee = defendant would pay £20,000 in claimant costs.</p><p></p><p>Pro bono = no fee is charged. It is essentially charity. If no fee is charged, no fee can be recoverable against a losing defendant (although pro bono costs might be recoverable). There may be some instances where someone is privately funding a lawyer but can no longer afford to pay so the lawyer agrees to do any further work pro bono, out of the goodness of their heart. But that would be unusual in litigation because of the availability of CFAs.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="catapillar, post: 1094748, member: 32394"] "No win no fee" does not equal pro bono. "No win no fee" = funding by conditional fee agreement (CFA) / damages based agreement wherein the agreement is: if you lose, we don't charge you and if you win, we will recover our fee from the other side. In litigation, the rule is the losing party pays, so if you lose you will be liable for the costs of successful defendant. This is why when you sign a CFA you usually also take out an insurance policy to cover the costs of the other side should you lose. CFAs are a gamble for the claimant's solicitor because if they lose, they will not recover their costs. However, because of this gamble, they will be allowed to charge a success fee if they win (in the uk) this can be up to 100% of the fee, so, say there was an amazingly cheap litigation where the claimant was funded by CFA and won with costs of £10,000 +100% success fee = defendant would pay £20,000 in claimant costs. Pro bono = no fee is charged. It is essentially charity. If no fee is charged, no fee can be recoverable against a losing defendant (although pro bono costs might be recoverable). There may be some instances where someone is privately funding a lawyer but can no longer afford to pay so the lawyer agrees to do any further work pro bono, out of the goodness of their heart. But that would be unusual in litigation because of the availability of CFAs. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post Reply
Home
Forums
Living with Diabetes
Jobs and Employment
I want to sue a cruise ship company
Top
Bottom
Find support, ask questions and share your experiences. Ad free.
Join the community »
This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn More.…