The ruling by the Court of Appeal falls very short of anything like justice for either the miners or taxpayers. In most cases, the solicitors will still receive more than the claimants.

You just have to look at the firms that have appeared out of nowhere and made millions - Beresfords, Avalon, Delta Legal, Barber & Co etc. For every £1000 of taxpayers money these firms receive, they probably don't spend more than £100 dealing with the case. This is low risk, easy work (much of which is done by the defendant). You only have to look at the actual number of solicitors employed by these firms to realise that the majority of these claims are dealt with by low paid admin staff and have never been near the desk of a qualified legal practitioner!

These firms would still have made a killing at £500 a case, never mind the new figure of £1200/£1100.

Jon, Liverpool, UK

My father died in 1967 aged 63 whilst still employed by the N C B.Our claim through a firm of solicitors was initially made some three years ago and has still not been settled.
Fed up with filling in repetetive forms and having to pay out for copies of death certificates and copies of wills for both my mother and father we decided to accept the fast track offer of around £1200 which I calculate equates to around
£70 invested in 1967-a small price to pay for a mans life.
This was some nine months ago and since then we have had only one correspondence from the solicitors which put the onus on us to prove that my father ever worked for the NCB-25 years of hard work totally forgotten.
Throughout the whole procedure we have felt that we were being stalled and being made to jump through one hoop after another.Since any compensation we do receive will
be shared five ways with my brothers and sister we do not feel greedy It is appalling that solicitors should get more for
7hrs work.

BRIAN CONCANNON, COALVILLE, U.K

Sorry Gernblan from Bromley/Winnipeg, but as a UK taxpayer (and also trainee solicitor- I have a foot in both camps!) I disagree that the Court of Appeal made a bad decision... I would rather see my tax going to the miners who, lets face it, have suffered enough under successive British governments, than to a solicitor who has benefited once from having his university fees/grants paid by the UK taxpayer in order to qualify to go on and earn even more from the taxpayer in these legal cases. Nobody should earn £1500 from taxpayers money for 7 hours work when the minimum wage is £6 an hour!

June , Liverpool, UK

Sorry but the real villains of the peace are the DTI who set up this system of payments in the first place and the Trade Unions who ensured they creamed money out of their own members in 'introducer' fees.

Jay, London,

I was amused but not surprised by 'gemblan's comments becasue they assume a level playing field.
Whilst the legal profession define who can and who can not argue cases they are basically holdng the public to ransom.
The market only works if it is free. Once you have a trade union (The Law Society) controlling things it is no longer a market place.

Graham Mills, H, united kingdom

The whole legal system is a disgrace and there is no means of the man on then street getting Justice and THAT is because of costs. If you take a case as a litigant in person because you cannot afford a solicitor you will find that they will win 1 interlocutory costs order for thousands of pounds and then use that Costs Order, that one cannot afford to pay, and stop the claim proceeding. We need to bring in a system like they have in France which is much much better.

John, Woking, UK

Having had experience of both good and bad solicitors I can vouch for the fact that there are some bad apples out there who do not bring added value.

Arnold Ward, Weybridge, Surrey, UK

I noticed the majority of comments state that solicitors/barristers charge too much for their services or are accused of padding their bills. While I'm not about to say that there no lawyers who do that, the majority do practice good billing procedure. Unfortunately, you never hear about the solicitors/barristers that actually do good for the general public and lest I remind you the theory of supply and demand, remember that everyone wants a solicitor/barrister until their problems are taken care of and then they become reluctant to pay their bill.

Perhaps, if no solicitors/barristers practiced this facit of law, then maybe the public might see what their worth is. Until then I think this is a bad decision by the Court of Appeal.

gernblan, Bromley/Winnipeg, England/Manitoba

Your headline on this subject is misleading and should be 'Lawyers to repay a tiny fraction of money that they have embezzled from the tax payer'. To presnt this as a fair resolution of this scandal is disgraceful.

My father used to say that the mafia never got a foothold in this country because our legal system was more corrupt than they were. Now I know what he meant!

John, Raunds, UK

Though this is an extreme example of padding bills, many who have dealt with solicitors' billing practices would know that this is a problem right across the board. Archaic hourly rates,closing ranks, and very low level of proof required in costs assessments procedures(in favour of solicitors) have led to the spread of this widespread 'costs cancer' within the solicitor profession. This latest judgment should be used as a springboard to a wider investigation to bill padding and exaggerated hours claimed .There should also be a review of the 'costs rules' in relation to assessement procedures to ensure there is greater scrutiny of charges claimed by solicitors.

Janet , London, UK

So, 1100 pounds for a day's work, and as little as 2,000 pounds for a ruined life. Where's the justice in that? Considerably reduced costs would mean a maximum of 100 pounds per hour, something no miner ever earned.

elaine, Zaragoza, Spain