'Don't ditch the label – there's nothing to put in its place'

'

No win, no fee' should mean just that. In personal injury litigation, it should mean only that claimants who lose a case do not have to pay the other side's costs or anything else.

The problem is that, for most ordinary people, it means a bit more. As Kerry Underwood, chairman of Underwoods, put it, 'no win, no fee' has "become associated with no fee at all" - whether you win or lose.

In a highly critical report on 'no win, no fee' last week, the chief ombudsman, Adam Sampson, even suggested the time had come to scrap the label.

The report revealed that law firms had paid out almost £1m in compensation, costs and reduced fees to 'no win, no fee' clients in the year November 2012 to November 2013.

Sampson said the report raised "genuine questions as to whether the 'no win, no fee' label should be used at all."

"Like pro bono, it's a sh** name, but when you think of an alternative, you struggle," Underwood said.

"It's the way clients think. They say 'will you do it on a no win, no fee basis?' We say 'yes, but there are risks and you will have to pay if you win."

Underwood said his firm made it clear to clients that they would a "significant chunk" of damages if they win, in success fees and insurance premiums.

He said the problem with insurance was that, despite

'¨'¨ask, because it has to pick up '¨the pieces.

They must look at their advertising and make sure it matches reality."

"If clients take out insurance, it is still a usable phrase. Firms must look at what they're offering, and be cautious about their use of the phrase.

Andrew Twambley, senior partner of Amelans, said he was concerned at the way LeO's 'no win, no fee' report had been reported in the media.

"The problem is that it implies that anyone who uses the phrase is a dodgy lawyer," Twambley said.

"It's a difficult phrase and I tend not to use it unless absolutely necessary. If I use it, I explain it."

Twambley said clients should only be charged if they won, or because they had lied or refused to contact the firm.

He added that the LeO report had given 'no win, no fee' a worse name that it already had. SJ