Exclusive: ‘Save the Legal Industry’ campaign warns Cameron of 100,000 jobs losses

Print This Post

19 March 2013

Campaign: petition to be delivered to Downing Street

Law firms are rallying around a campaign to warn the government that 100,000 jobs across the legal services industry will be lost over the next year as a result of its “savage” civil justice reforms, Legal Futures can reveal.

The ‘Save the Legal Industry’ campaign said law firms are already making layoffs and going bust ahead of the changes, with non-legal staff such as secretaries and administrative staff bearing the brunt – a situation that increasing the small claims limit for whiplash cases from £1,000 to £5,000 will exacerbate severely, it predicted.

Highlighting the “human toll” of the reform programme, it accused the government of ignoring the widespread impact of the changes across the sector, including claims management companies, medical reporting agencies, credit hire companies and others.

Following a meeting of managing partners in Manchester last week, well-known personal injury firms such as Amelans, Antony Hodari, Fentons, Jeffries Solicitors, Tollers and Gorman Hamilton have all backed the campaign, which is headed by Martin Coyne, managing partner of Manchester-based Ralli.

The campaign aims to gather at least 10,000 names on a petition that will be delivered to 10 Downing Street next Thursday, just four days before the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 comes into force. This would require the government to issue a response to the petition; 100,000 signatures triggers consideration of a parliamentary debate. (Pending approval of the government e-petition, you can sign here.)

Mr Coyne said he has already had to make a fifth of his 85-strong personal injury department redundant as he contends with a likely 33% reduction in turnover because of the new portal fees. “I am doing everything I can to sustain the business. A lot of other firms are in the same boat.”

He continued: “The ultimate aim of the reforms, according to the government, is to reduce car insurance premiums. But the likes of Direct Line have already admitted that they will make no difference. What’s left is an attack on the economy at a time when the country can afford it least.

“Where do David Cameron and Chris Grayling think this many people will be able to find new jobs? In pandering to the wishes of the insurance lobby, this government will imperil many families and only end up increasing the welfare bill.”

Mr Coyne said he and his colleagues were taking up the cudgels because solicitors had been badly let down by their representative body. “The Law Society should have been at the forefront of this fight, but instead they’ve sat back and left it to others. This shameful inaction should have the same kind of consequences it is having for those it purports to represent, and so we call on the leadership of the Law Society to take responsibility.”

Others to have signed up to the campaign include law firms Russell & Russell, Beers, Edwards Hoyle and The Clarke Partnership, as well as Cobden House Chambers and after-the-event insurance company Keystone Legal.

Tags: , ,

25 Responses to “Exclusive: ‘Save the Legal Industry’ campaign warns Cameron of 100,000 jobs losses”

  1. Martin Coyne for President !!…..well, no other person or organisation is looking after us…

  2. Andrew Twambley on March 19th, 2013 at 7:34 am
  3. I also think that solicitors and barristers should be uniting on these issues and fighting together

  4. Kim Evans on March 19th, 2013 at 11:52 am
  5. hear hear

  6. Guy on March 19th, 2013 at 2:43 pm
  7. Save the Legal Industry

  8. Kerry sweeney on March 19th, 2013 at 5:52 pm
  9. Not sure the Bold Group members would agree Andrew.

  10. Rob Hailstone on March 19th, 2013 at 7:04 pm
  11. Howards solicitors support this campaign in full .

  12. Howards solicitors on March 19th, 2013 at 8:00 pm
  13. Mrs Thatcher’s Victorian values plough on. The poor in society ground down. The law, education and health will become accessible only to the rich

  14. Hilary Bennett on March 19th, 2013 at 9:16 pm
  15. A bit too late my friends. What a surprise that this is led by north west firms,. They have grown on the back of claim farmers who they have fueled for the last 13 years. You reap what sawe.

  16. Abdul hafezi on March 19th, 2013 at 11:37 pm
  17. At last somebody seems to be doing something.

    I seem to remember from many years back there was an organisation…..can’t remember it’s name….was it something like The Law Society……..that was supposed to look after the interests of solicitors………..no, I must be imagining it…………

  18. Peter Maynard on March 20th, 2013 at 11:29 am
  19. how and where do i put my name to the list

  20. stephen almond on March 20th, 2013 at 12:48 pm
  21. How much of this is down to the lawyers themselves? Not bringing their businesses into 21st century, trying to add excessive extras onto bills (£30 for a tt fee that only costs £15 etc) and massive failure to comply with SRAARs because the lawyers think they know it all and won’t be told.

  22. accountsLEGAL on March 20th, 2013 at 2:03 pm
  23. How many jobs will be lost if this goes through , THINK Mr Cameron !!!!

  24. alison Noonan on March 20th, 2013 at 2:57 pm
  25. As a result of these reforms HMRC are going to miss the contribution made by law firms for both tax and vat not to mention the strain which will be put on the welfare system following the loss of 100,000 well paid jobs which contributed to the wealth of the nation. We will now see insurers increasing profits and more money going overseas and poorly paid jobs at outsourced call centres in foreign countries. They call this progress!

  26. Gerard P Dervan on March 20th, 2013 at 11:16 pm
  27. Speaking as a personal injury lawyer dealing with EL, PL and OL claims, it is not just whiplash claims (which I accept in some cases may be spurious) that the Jackson reforms will affect. It is the the personal injury industry as a whole, including insurance companies, as the reforms clearly seek to prevent many cases getting to court in the first place which means Defendant firms will also suffer. I did not envisage spending years training to become a lawyer only to be told by the Government that we cannot charge the rates we are entitled to based on our experience and qualifications. How are now expected to run a case at roughly 1/3 of the actual cost it takes to properly deal with it? The SRA will not relax the rules yet we will inevitably have to cut corners to make any sort of profit. Absolute madness!

  28. Siobhan Thomas on March 21st, 2013 at 9:26 am
  29. The LEIG (Legal Expense Insurance Group), supporting AJAG have been on this issue for the last 3-4 years. I’ve signed the petition, lobbied my MP and Elite (as well as others) have spent £1000s – we will continue but it is wearing that not everyone who is involved in the industry has signed yet or got involved sooner.

    We can’t just simply look to individuals to carry the fight. Although I agree it is shameful that the Law Society hasn’t got behind this sooner but being fragmented in this fight has helped, not hindered the ABI. The criticism should be levied later once everything is exhausted.

  30. Jeff Dawson on March 21st, 2013 at 6:33 pm
  31. Joy Bassett on March 21st, 2013 at 7:09 pm
  32. Strange that the news does not report anything on projected job losses. Wonder why?

  33. Keith Morris on March 21st, 2013 at 9:16 pm
  34. Whilst you are all posting on the comments section, if you could take a moment to actually sign the petition – the link is in the article – it may have more effect!

  35. MrsC on March 22nd, 2013 at 11:16 am
  36. It is ridiculous when insurers pay up to 50% of premium cost in advertising and portal fees make no account for this in the new costs. Staff are losing their jobs in the Industry yet civil servants striking over pension and wage freeze. Think what they would be doing with a 60% reduction.
    The economy is forecast to grow at 0.6% and we have imbeciles in charge who are so far removed from the rest of the public they cannot see, understand or care about their slash and burn tactics. Just short of a couple of lightening bolts on their shirt collars

  37. steve leyland on March 22nd, 2013 at 1:01 pm
  38. Whilst my own firm has already reduced its overhead costs to the absolute minimum and made best use of all up-to-date technology in order to prepare for this badly thought through Government assault upon the legal sector many firms have simply not been allowed sufficient time to adapt to these changes and as a result are doomed to financial failure.

    Why on earth is there such a rush to bring these changes in without a full and detailed assessment of the full impact of these changes upon the public and the legal sector?

  39. Richard Hirst on March 24th, 2013 at 10:29 am
  40. Obviously, I have an interest in this, as I have worked for Martin for the last 17 years. I have made my views very clear, many times. I said to someone the other day, I remember in the 80s Dennis Skinner talking about the miners and saying “‘It was an honourable dispute. It was the only strike I can recall that wasn’t about pay but was about saving jobs for other people’ Whilst I don’t liken what we face to anything near to what the miners went through, the sentiment is exactly the same, this IS about saving jobs for other people. I don’t want this profession that I’ve been a part of for so long to be ruined, clients be disregarded and jobs be lost, at least not without a fight.

  41. Gill Nuttall on March 25th, 2013 at 9:18 am
  42. There used to be a football institution called the Football League who were indifferent to its members and as a result the Premier League was born. The Law Society?

  43. Paul Carroll on March 25th, 2013 at 12:44 pm
  44. I don’t fully understand the complex details of this situation. However, any decision which could potentially put 100’s of 1000’s of people out of work is a bad decision

  45. Angela Fitzpatrick on April 2nd, 2013 at 2:09 pm
  46. Budget cuts hitting hard it seems. The point is that a major insurer like Direct Line are saying that it will make no difference, so surely this is a bad thing.

    I also agree with Angela, that making lots of people lose their jobs (in this economy especially) is a bad decision.

  47. John Jones on April 22nd, 2014 at 10:27 am
  48. I’m just wondering what has happened since? I believe the industry in England has been hit really hard. And many firms risk being closed down. Scotland hasn’t been affected as our Laws are devolved to Scotland. Do you think this damage will ever be reversed if a new Government is elected?

  49. James Scott on April 20th, 2015 at 10:44 am

Leave a comment

* Denotes required field

All comments will be moderated before posting. Please see our Terms and Conditions

Legal Futures Blog

Why your firm should support working mothers to the hilt

Georgina Hamblin

If you are going to balance the demands of work and childcare, and stay sane, you need to adapt, and with any luck your firm will adapt with you. In doing so you will both win, and your respective productivity will soar. When I had my son, I realised just how lucky I was. Not only did I have the incredible support of my, and my husband’s, family through this life-changing time, but I had a firm that offered me complete flexibility and control over my return to business life.

April 19th, 2018