Pro bono or Conditional Fee Arrangement (CFA)?

[Brietta]

This is the OP.    Surely it isn't right to make claims damaging someone without hard evidence.    Even if in the long term the claim did get proven correct, the claim cannot be made until the evidence has been decided in a trial?

How would you feel if someone claimed you killed a child?  OK they could then say, according to your argument, we won't pay damages because there are unsolved cases and it is possible one of these is still attributable to you.

I think the question lies more with the options the McCanns had towards the suing of the press in court than the options the press had for being taken to the cleaners had the McCanns done so.

In my opinion the press did not have a leg to stand on such was the volume and nature of the headlines they had chosen to print without let or hindrance.

[Mr Gray]

In a broad sense pro bono means work carried out free of charge...and not necessarily legal work
We will not agree so I see no point in continuing the discussion

[G-Unit]

In a broad sense pro bono means work carried out free of charge...and not necessarily legal work
We will not agree so I see no point in continuing the discussion

Pro bono means those providing the service are doing it for nothing; win or lose. 

[Mr Gray]

Pro bono means those providing the service are doing it for nothing; win or lose.

That's your definition and therefore your opinion...

[Vertigo Swirl]

Pro bono describes the terms under which a professional provides a service. not how a client experiences the service. In this case the client's experience is the same whether the service is provided pro bono or under a conditional fee agreement.

So from the McCanns’ point of view there is no difference between pro bono or CFA.  Great, glad that’s sorted.  Perhaps we can move on now?

[faithlilly]

Ordinary people are on a hiding to nothing when it comes to taking on a conglomerate intent on libelling them.

If the McCanns had not found a way of of taking on the media in a way which was of no cost to them they would have had no legal redress against the publications defaming them.


pro bono
adverb & adjective NORTH AMERICAN
denoting work undertaken without charge, especially legal work for a client on low income.
"the attorneys are representing him pro bono"
synonyms:   free, gratis, unpaid, unrewarded, unsalaried, free of charge, without charge, for nothing, at no cost, without payment, for the common good; More




Did Carter Ruck agree to act professionally for the McCanns and their friends?  Yes they did.

How much did Carter Ruck charge the McCanns and their friends for their professional service?  It didn't cost the McCann's or their friends anything at all.

Therefore it was free.  As can be seen from the dictionary definition above 'pro bono' is undertaking wok on behalf of a client which doesn't incur a charge.

So what on earth is this prolonged semantics pack hunt that Davel has been subjected to really all about???


Snip
These really are just some thoughts for the future rather than anything that may be enforced in law, but we do know, and the media know, that they’re incredibly powerful. In the past they’ve been showing it by displaying images and they can help find children and that was why we chose to interact with them. However they have the potential to destroy lives and if we had not been supported as well as we had, by many different people including Carter Ruck, then they could have destroyed our lives and what was already seriously damaged.

So with such power comes marked responsibility. I think it is extremely important that ordinary people like ourselves do have the right to legal redress and I’m not sure that we could have gone through with these complaints against large organisations without the safety net of a conditional fee arrangement and that is certainly something that I think within the UK, should continue. And I’d like to ask for an appeal to the media, to remember that at the centre of every tragic story there are real people and real children and real families and we are not characters. Thank you.
Gerry McCann
https://www.ibanet.org/Article/NewDetail.aspx?ArticleUid=329261a6-5bf6-448a-9476-5b34ff80d6a2

CR didn’t do the work free of charge. The Express settled and paid CR. Before and after that CR were paid a retainer probably by the fund or a wealthy benefactor. If the case had gone to court and the McCanns had lost the insurance that would have been taken out with the CFA would have paid CR’s bill. Pro bono, by the BRITISH Law society definition means the law firm does the work for nothing, is paid by no one.

At no time did CR work for nothing ie pro bono. How much clearer does it have to be made ?

[Mr Gray]

CR didn’t do the work free of charge. The Express settled and paid CR. Before and after that CR were paid a retainer probably by the fund or a wealthy benefactor. If the case had gone to court and the McCanns had lost the insurance that would have been taken out with the CFA would have paid CR’s bill. Pro bono, by the BRITISH Law society definition means the law firm does the work for nothing, is paid by no one.

At no time did CR work for nothing ie pro bono. How much clearer does it have to be made ?

In the conflict with the express CR did the initial stages free of charge to the McCann's...pro bono...the express capitulated and there was no need for a CFA according to Gerry...CR then recovered fees from the express.

[G-Unit]

So from the McCanns’ point of view there is no difference between pro bono or CFA.  Great, glad that’s sorted.  Perhaps we can move on now?

I think you've missed the point. Because the McCann's experience is identical we can't deduce what arrangement was in place by referring to it's effect on them.

[faithlilly]

In the conflict with the express CR did the initial stages free of charge to the McCann's...pro bono...the express capitulated and there was no need for a CFA according to Gerry...CR then recovered fees from the express..

In the initial stages CR were on a retainer, I have already posted the cite.

[Robittybob1]

IMO that action was indeterminable since it was not known what happened to the child and if the parents were as innocent as they claimed.   I think this is even more relevant now given the SC statement.  If in the end this turns out badly for the parents then that money will be repayable.  The court should not have released that money until Maddie's fate has been legally established imo.

44

OK can Angelo define the following terms in the OP?

"that action"  - what action?
Is he saying it is not known "what happened to the child"?
Is he saying it is not known "if the parents were as innocent as they claimed"?

What is meant by "I think this is even more relevant now given the SC statement."  What is more relevant?

Who says the money is repayable?

[Angelo222]

OK can Angelo define the following terms in the OP?

"that action"  - what action?
Is he saying it is not known "what happened to the child"?
Is he saying it is not known "if the parents were as innocent as they claimed"?

What is meant by "I think this is even more relevant now given the SC statement."  What is more relevant?

Who says the money is repayable?

"that action" refers to any libel case against the media.  It wasn't known then what happened to the child and it still isn't known. Furthermore, the Portuguese SC has stated that the parents have not been cleared which renders any future libel action somewhat precarious imo.

[Mr Gray]

"that action" refers to any libel case against the media.  It wasn't known then what happened to the child and it still isn't known. Furthermore, the Portuguese SC has stated that the parents have not been cleared which renders any future libel action somewhat precarious imo.

in the UK the mccanns are entitled to the presumption of innocence...amaral would not be able to make his statements or sell his book in the uk......the ECHR may well decide the SC got their judgeemnt totally wrong...as they have done before...portugal ahd two rulings against the in June this year...whcih shows the court does not always get things right

[Angelo222]

in the UK the mccanns are entitled to the presumption of innocence...amaral would not be able to make his statements or sell his book in the uk......the ECHR may well decide the SC got their judgeemnt totally wrong...as they have done before...portugal ahd two rulings against the in June this year...whcih shows the court does not always get things right

Entitled to a presumption of innocence is simply a legal platitude.

[Mr Gray]

Entitled to a presumption of innocence is simply a legal platitude.

Not in a UK libel case it isn't...it's extremely important..
Let me rephrase it

They have the RIGHT to be considered INNOCENT....that's important in a libel case...very important

[Angelo222]

Gerry says he doesnt believe they would have had the recources.....sounds like hes talking about a possibility to me...not an actual situation....


he is on record as saying  a CFA was not becessary which confirme to me there was not one in place

Just because something ended up being unnecessary is hardly evidence it wasn't already in place.  Gerry admitted that he wouldn't have been able to take on the media without a Conditional Fee Arrangement being in place so no doubt it was put in place before Carter Ruck lodged their libel action.  As it turned out though it wasn't needed as the media rolled over and paid up, damages to the McCanns and fees to CR.