Pro bono or Conditional Fee Arrangement (CFA)?

[Mr Gray]

That's not how it works Dave.  Nobody will pay out £100,000's on the basis of a letter.  Its absurd frankly.

This is becoming silly now.

Settlement Basics
“Settlement” is just a term for formal resolution of a legal dispute without the matter being decided by a court judgment (jury verdict or judge's ruling). Usually that means the defendant offers a certain sum of money to the plaintiff in exchange for the plaintiff's signing a release of the defendant's liability in connection with the underlying incident or transaction. This can happen at any point in a civil lawsuit. It can even occur before the plaintiff files a lawsuit at all, if the parties can come together a reach a fair agreement soon after the dispute arises, and both sides are motivated to do so.


so a settlement can be made before a lawsuit is filed...or a writ issued inother words

[Mr Gray]

On a retainer (as per Adam Tudor). So not free

Mr Tudor: Yes. My partners and I talked about it. We have a committee of partners that looks at whether or not a case is on a no win, no fee basis, as you probably heard from my partner, Mark Thompson. We did that with Kate and Gerry's case. It was a longer, more difficult discussion than would ordinarily be the case because of the extraordinary nature, volume and so on. We sent the complaints to The Express and The Star, at which point we were acting on a normal retainer. We indicated to Kate and Gerry and we told The Express and The Star at that time that if the matter was not resolved we would indeed go on to a no win, no fee arrangement.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmcumeds/uc275-iii/uc27502.htm

so you have now changed track from CFA to retainer...retainers do not always involve the paymnet of fees unless a case is started...

Retainer
A contract between attorney and client specifying the nature of the services to be rendered and the cost of the services.

Retainer also denotes the fee that the client pays when employing an attorney to act on her behalf. When a client retains an attorney to act for her, the client thereby prevents the attorney from acting for an adversary.


yet another cite supplied

[Sunny]

No Davel that was in reply to Vertigo Swirl not you.

Here is your own special reply (sorry I don't know how to quote myself from pages ago)


Mr Jay
One point you make, these libel proceedings were brought with the benefit of conditional fee agreements; is that correct?

Link in context Link

Mr McCann
Yes. I think it's very important, given the scale of the task that faced us, and we were given -- we made our decisions after being fully informed of the pathway, and I think that's very important. It was a last resort. And at the time, given our circumstances, I do not believe we would have had the resource to go down that path if it wasn't for a CFA being in place.

https://leveson.sayit.mysociety.org/hearing-23-november-2011/dr-gerald-patrick-mccann-and-dr-kate-marie-mccann

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9827.msg474781#msg474781

He said "if it wasn't for a CFA being in place" Davel.

[Robittybob1]

On a retainer (as per Adam Tudor). So not free

Mr Tudor: Yes. My partners and I talked about it. We have a committee of partners that looks at whether or not a case is on a no win, no fee basis, as you probably heard from my partner, Mark Thompson. We did that with Kate and Gerry's case. It was a longer, more difficult discussion than would ordinarily be the case because of the extraordinary nature, volume and so on. We sent the complaints to The Express and The Star, at which point we were acting on a normal retainer. We indicated to Kate and Gerry and we told The Express and The Star at that time that if the matter was not resolved we would indeed go on to a no win, no fee arrangement.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmcumeds/uc275-iii/uc27502.htm

This is rather a comprehensive summary.

[Mr Gray]

No Davel that was in reply to Vertigo Swirl not you.

Here is your own special reply (sorry I don't know how to quote myself from pages ago)


Mr Jay
One point you make, these libel proceedings were brought with the benefit of conditional fee agreements; is that correct?

Link in context Link

Mr McCann
Yes. I think it's very important, given the scale of the task that faced us, and we were given -- we made our decisions after being fully informed of the pathway, and I think that's very important. It was a last resort. And at the time, given our circumstances, I do not believe we would have had the resource to go down that path if it wasn't for a CFA being in place.

https://leveson.sayit.mysociety.org/hearing-23-november-2011/dr-gerald-patrick-mccann-and-dr-kate-marie-mccann

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9827.msg474781#msg474781

He said "if it wasn't for a CFA being in place" Davel.

Gerry says they could not have gone down that path without a CFA being in place...from what I have seen they did not need to go down that path so the CFA was unnecessary...imo....

[Robittybob1]

Gerry says they could not have gone down that path without a CFA being in place...from what I have seen they did not need to go down that path so the CFA was unnecessary

It appears to me to be a "big stick", that ultimately doesn't get used.   It is debatable whether having the "big stick" persuaded the other party to submit or not, for the "big stick" was never used but it was waved around.

[G-Unit]

I'm very serious....CR send a letter alleging libel....the express apologize and pay damages....no writ issued

I don't think a court hearing arises as a result of people sending letters to others;

The case of McCann and McCann versus Express Newspapers commenced on 19th March 2008 in Court 13 of the High Court, with Judge Eady presiding.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id89.htm

A court date is set after an application has been filed and served on the defendant(s). When the application is filed the court fees must be paid. Ten thousand pounds for claims over £200,000.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/queens-bench-division-bring-a-case-to-the-court

[Sunny]

I see it that CR were paid by the fund (or the McCann's direct) as a retainer. This covered all the early work an there  was a CFA in place should it need to go to court. Either way CR would get paid and were not doing anything free.

Of course as per rules this is AIMO

[Mr Gray]

I don't think a court hearing arises as a result of people sending letters to others;

The case of McCann and McCann versus Express Newspapers commenced on 19th March 2008 in Court 13 of the High Court, with Judge Eady presiding.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id89.htm

A court date is set after an application has been filed and served on the defendant(s). When the application is filed the court fees must be paid. Ten thousand pounds for claims over £200,000.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/queens-bench-division-bring-a-case-to-the-court

it starts with a letter......then a discussion...I have provided a cite to show an out of court settlement can be agreed before legal proceedings are started

[Mr Gray]

I see it that CR were paid by the fund (or the McCann's direct) as a retainer. This covered all the early work an there  was a CFA in place should it need to go to court. Either way CR would get paid and were not doing anything free.

Of course as per rules this is AIMO

you have your opinion and I have mine...

[Sunny]

Let's agree to disagree. IMO mine is a fact based opinion and I will never agree with you on this.

Do you at least agree they paid CR using a retainer prior to any court or do you still insist that CR were doing it free (to everyone).  Remember I have shown that some newspapers paid the McCanns' legal fees - if CR were free there would be no legal fees of course

[Angelo222]

Settlement Basics
“Settlement” is just a term for formal resolution of a legal dispute without the matter being decided by a court judgment (jury verdict or judge's ruling). Usually that means the defendant offers a certain sum of money to the plaintiff in exchange for the plaintiff's signing a release of the defendant's liability in connection with the underlying incident or transaction. This can happen at any point in a civil lawsuit. It can even occur before the plaintiff files a lawsuit at all, if the parties can come together a reach a fair agreement soon after the dispute arises, and both sides are motivated to do so.


so a settlement can be made before a lawsuit is filed...or a writ issued inother words

Hardly likely in a case where a huge sum of money is involved.  No defendant is ever going to hand over a pile of cash on the basis of a letter and that is why a writ is lodged with the royal courts.  If you can prove that this didn't happen in the McCann case then let's see your evidence, otherwise put a sock in it...nicely off course!

[Mr Gray]

Hardly likely in a case where a huge sum of money is involved.  No defendant is ever going to hand over a pile of cash on the basis of a letter and that is why a writ is lodged with the royal courts.  If you can prove that this didn't happen in the McCann case then let's see your evidence, otherwise put a sock in it...nicely off course!

Can you prove a writ was lodged....let's see your evidence otherwise put a sock in it...nicely of course...
If it was clear to the solicitors for the express that there was no defense to an accusation of libel they would advise settlement writ or no writ... Imo

[Mr Gray]

Let's agree to disagree. IMO mine is a fact based opinion and I will never agree with you on this.

Do you at least agree they paid CR using a retainer prior to any court or do you still insist that CR were doing it free (to everyone).  Remember I have shown that some newspapers paid the McCanns' legal fees - if CR were free there would be no legal fees of course

I have provided a cite showing a retainer does not always involve pre payment..I have seen no proof the McCann's paid CR a penny.... obviously as I have stated all along they recovered their fees from the defendants

[Mr Gray]

Hardly likely in a case where a huge sum of money is involved.  No defendant is ever going to hand over a pile of cash on the basis of a letter and that is why a writ is lodged with the royal courts.  If you can prove that this didn't happen in the McCann case then let's see your evidence, otherwise put a sock in it...nicely off course!

As I have already posted...it starts with s letter from CR to the newspaper...the paper forwards the letter to is solicitors and then the two solicitors thrash out a deal...no need for a writ