Great Britain continues to grapple with the repercussions of its decision to join the U.S. in permitting contingent-fee legal representation:
Lawyers who encourage parents and pupils to make speculative allegations of abuse against teachers in the hope of winning financial compensation risk are destroying the reputation of thousands of teachers, a teaching union has said.
The National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) said that lawyers working on a “no win, no fee” basis were fuelling a rise in malicious allegations against teachers, made in the knowledge that local authorities would often pay complainants without even investigating their allegations.
(Alexandra Frean, Times Online, May 5).
2 Comments
For years, Canada, Australia, and the UK didn’t allow contingency fees. Melvin Belli, a pioneer in contingency fee litigation, wrote in his autobiography how shocked a Canadian lawyer was at the idea, calling it “Champerty and Maintenance.”
I don’t know how British teacher unions compare to American ones, but for them to pick out this issue for attention must have been painful. Things like lawsuits are usually beloved by their left-leaning administration. Maybe they can ease their worries by looking into how contingent fee suits by teachers against either students or the schools can be just as lucrative.