CFAs used by 'greedy and unscrupulous' law firms are press threat, says Dacre

This article was migrated from an old version of our website in 2025. As a result, it might have some low-quality images or non-functioning links - if there's any issues you'd like to see fixed, get in touch with us at info@journalism.co.uk.

Law firms who use Conditional Fee Agreements (CFAs) in cases against the press are 'rapacious, greedy and unscrupulous', the editor of the UK's Daily Mail has said.

At a hearing of the House of Commons select committee on press standards, privacy and libel , Paul Dacre said the expense of CFAs inhibits newspapers from fighting cases in court, while acting as an incentive for law firms, such as Carter Ruck and Schillings, to 'tout for business'.

"I'd be astonished if they [law firms] weren't ambulance-chasing rich clients. It's a massive hypocrisy because those celebrity clients are often at work with the paparazzi," he said.

"What concerns me is they [CFAs] are increasingly being used by the celebrity class and the rich. In that respect they [law firms] are cherry-picking their clients and only taking on cases they expect to win."

Dacre's comments echoed those given in evidence to the committee in February from a panel of media lawyers , who said the high costs of CFAs allowed the rich to exploit the UK legal system.

CFAs are intended, under a 'no win, no fee' system, to provide access to justice for those who could not otherwise afford to pursue litigation. If the case is won the solicitor will charge a success fee.

The situation in the UK, however, is 'always win, double the fee', suggested Dacre, adding that London is now perceived as 'the libel capital of the world' because it is 'so claimant friendly'.

A cap on how much a lawyer can charge and how long they can spend on a case, which increases the fee, should be introduced, said Dacre.

The system of success fees should also be addressed, he said, adding that in Ireland there are no such fees for firms who win cases.

"I'd obviously encourage people to go to the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) where they get free and instant justice. It's in the interest of the legal trade to clean up their act," he said.

"I don't for the life of me understand why (...) a lawyer defending a client's reputation [should be] paid four times more than a lawyer defending a client from prison. These suggestions would still leave lots of people plenty of access."

Reiterating the argument he made against CFAs in his Society of Editors speech last November , Dacre said the arrangements were having a 'chilling effect' on the UK media, in particular on the provincial press, who cannot afford to risk paying the fees of a claimant's lawyer if they lose a case.

In a recent case involving the Mail on Sunday, the claimant's legal fees came to £520,000 after VAT, for a case in which damages of just £5,000 were awarded, he said.

"Every day we [the Daily Mail] are not going quite as far as we used to, and we are settling things - even at the expense of paying disproportionate expenses not to go to court," he said.

Related links from the select committee's hearing:

'Paul Dacre: Statutory privacy law would have 'deleterious and chilling effect' on press freedom '

(Journalism.co.uk)

'The PCC's problem is not its code; it's how it is applied, says Greenslade' (Journalism.co.uk) 'UK law prevents truth-telling in journalism, Nick Davies tells parliamentary committee' (Journalism.co.uk)