In 2015, a review of the regulations was carried out by the Civil Justice Council working group chaired by Professor Rachel Mulheron and draft DBA regulations for 2015. However, these have not been put forward. Subsequently, the Department of Justice requested an independent review of the 2013 DBA provisions by Professor Rachel MulHeron and Nicholas Bacon QC. This led to the provisions of the DBA 2019. “… If Parliament considered it necessary that the agreements in question be prevented by counsel from recovering the time costs in circumstances other than the time when the agreement continued to be concluded after the conclusion of a dispute, it would have said so in the form and not as a secondary consequence of another subject – how the sharing of the loot should work. The deadline for feedback on the new redesign proposals was November 15, 2019. Professor Mulheron and Mr Bacon are preparing, on the basis of the feedback received, a supplementary report which I know will be available in early 2020. The 2019 DBA regulations followed the structure of the 2013 DBA regulations, but they made some major changes: like Sir Rupert and many others, I consider the government`s policy on hybrid DBAs to be impossible to justify, particularly given the potential to achieve a synthetic hybrid agreement combined with process financing or insurance. An amendment to this directive would give lawyers greater flexibility to offer commercial clients options for simple and transparent pricing agreements that give the “skin in the game” that many clients want to have from them. DBA regulations appear to exclude DBAs in part or in “hybrids,” with a lawyer eligible for benefit. B a reduced hourly rate if the business is redeemed, which is recoverable, plus a contingency tax if successful. The main culprit for all of this, it is generally agreed, is the 2013 compensation agreements.

They have introduced a number of restrictions that, at best, seem arbitrary and have surprised the profession, including the overt ban on hybrid agreements that prevent lawyers from combining a DBA with another form of funding (for example. B a reduced hourly rate if the case continues, with a proportion of potential damage to success). This restriction was not predicted in any of the government`s pre-legislative materials, and I assume it was not provided for by the government. In any event, these restrictions, combined with various drafting conditions of non-employment in regulations, have significantly increased the risks inherent in the new regime and have made ABA less attractive to those who might otherwise propose them. Initial DBA regulations were only available for employment issues. However, in 2013, the 2013 DBA Regulation extended the DBA regime to include commercial and personal injury. This is due to Jackson`s reforms, which came into effect the same year. Reforms to limit cost recovery under conditional pricing agreements and post-event assurance should be offset by the extension of the DBA plan. However, widespread criticism of the 2013 DBA regulations in the area of trade and aggression has led to very limited enforcement of damage-based agreements. The Law Society responded to the independent review of the Compensation Agreements Regulations in 2013.

On February 7, 2019, the government released the results of its review following the implementation of Part 2 of the LASPO, with legislation implementing the introduction of the DBA (as well as other aspects of the Jackson reforms).