<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Contingency fees in the ET to be abolished?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.usefullyemployed.co.uk/2008/06/27/contingency-fees-in-the-et-to-be-abolished/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.usefullyemployed.co.uk/2008/06/27/contingency-fees-in-the-et-to-be-abolished/</link>
	<description>An Employment Law Blog by a UK barrister</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 13:55:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Contingency fees in employment &#8211; Law Society wades in&#8230; &#171; Usefully Employed</title>
		<link>http://blog.usefullyemployed.co.uk/2008/06/27/contingency-fees-in-the-et-to-be-abolished/comment-page-1/#comment-38442</link>
		<dc:creator>Contingency fees in employment &#8211; Law Society wades in&#8230; &#171; Usefully Employed</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2010 22:53:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://usefullyemployed.wordpress.com/?p=81#comment-38442</guid>
		<description>[...] By way of reminder, the charging of a contingency fee &#8211; where the amount charged by the representative is a percentage of the compensation recovered &#8211; had gained great popularity in the last few years. Costs are not normally payable by the losing party in the Employment Tribunal, so the DBA model provides one of the few funding options for the impecunious client. There are problems however, and for my discussion of the conflicting pressures on a DBA funded representative, and the background to the government&#8217;s decision to regulate them, see my previous post here. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] By way of reminder, the charging of a contingency fee &#8211; where the amount charged by the representative is a percentage of the compensation recovered &#8211; had gained great popularity in the last few years. Costs are not normally payable by the losing party in the Employment Tribunal, so the DBA model provides one of the few funding options for the impecunious client. There are problems however, and for my discussion of the conflicting pressures on a DBA funded representative, and the background to the government&#8217;s decision to regulate them, see my previous post here. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

