With the days of the Jackson exemption apparently numbered, the use of conditional fee agreements (CFAs) by practitioners is set to become less attractive. While CFAs will still remain a possible option, it is a good time to explore the limited experience so far of damage based agreements (DBAs). Are they more attractive as a viable mechanism to enable valuable rights to be pursued? This article seeks to identify lessons learned, and point out the structural, financial and ethical difficulties that have so far inhibited their use.
This article was first published in the Spring issue of RECOVERY. It is reproduced with the permission of R3 and GTI Media.