Mr. Dave Coleman:

I handled a case in the north east recently involving a multiple assault. A total of 112 people were in the cohort. An offer of settlement was reached. As a result of that, each person had to sign up to it. Of course, some people were recalcitrant and reluctant. However, we agreed with the other side that there would be a 95% uptake and that would allow for it to be put before the court. One can imagine when one must negotiate 95% of one's cohort. Similarly, in all the other cases, in order to settle a case because one is not settling for full value, one is settling to de-risk a case because one will not always win 100%, one must take into account the risks the case faces before the law as it is. We have agreed these "as you go" ways. I do not think it is really acceptable to have that type of system in place if one is going to legislate for multi-party actions. There must be a more structured method of dealing with this even if one must enshrine it in legislation that once certain criteria are followed, the case is deemed to be settled. We could speak to that probably on the basis of other types of issues. For example, if 95% of the plaintiffs for whom I act want to settle, what happens to the other 5%? Do I act for them and continue? Clearly, I cannot do so if I have recommended a settlement. They are almost in effect cast out other than for the settlement that has been foisted upon them. It does create quite an issue and a tension with people who will, ultimately, blame their lawyer when, in fact, one is trying to look for the common good and is doing perhaps what a judge would rule if appointed to do so - not the judge hearing the case or creating the register but an application to another judge to hear the pros and cons of the settlement and not the case.