But perhaps the most important development of all will be the liberalization of the market for legal services, which will facilitate the introduction of capital into the financing of processes to an unprecedented extent. Thus, the Legal Services Act of 2007 and the resulting amendments will prove to be extremely ambitious, perhaps much more so than lifting the ban on emergency agreements. 5. Such a provision imposes the maximum percentage allowed for each description of certain procedures. You will likely indicate that a contingency fee agreement entered into by the client may be invalid. Thus, in Example C, we ensured that the client received 75% of the damage, effectively waived part of the basic costs and did not collect a success fee, and so we received a negative success fee. The original rules only allowed contingency fee agreements in personal injury claims, proceedings related to the management or liquidation of a company or proceedings before the European Commission or the Court of Human Rights. Any premiums for success fees and/or legal protection had to be paid by the client, usually on any damages received. The pass fee was capped at a maximum of 100% of the normal (or basic) fee. Since then, the maximum success fee is 100%.
There was no cap on the total amount of the pass fee, even though the Law Society, as it was at the time, recommended a 25% cap and many lawyers complied with it. Contingency fee agreements have recently been criticized for a number of reasons, including: (4) In this section, “specified procedure” means the procedure of a description established by decision of the Chancellor of the Lord for the purposes of subsection (3). 12. It is still too early to assess the impact of these particular changes. But even before this investigation began, it was clear that changes were needed. A document published by the Advice Services Alliance stated that consumers could be put in a difficult situation by signing agreements entitled “No Win, No Fee”. One particular concern she noted was that, in certain circumstances, people who had taken out ATE insurance (by the insurer) were forced (by the insurer) to accept transaction offers, even though they were fewer in number than they might normally have expected.  The document also noted that “many people mistakenly think they win or lose, they won`t have to pay anything” and states that this is not true, because if you lose, you don`t have to pay your own attorney`s fees, but you will have to pay the accused`s legal fees. If you had ATE insurance, you would have to pay the cost of the insurance premium for that policy. Other concerns have been expressed about the improper sale of ATE insurance in cases where consumers are insured prior to event insurance.
 Complaints have also been filed against the behaviour of claims management companies. These companies advertise on television, radio and other media and some advertise on the hospital`s website. The services they offer range from the intermediation of ATE insurance, the transfer of persons entitled to a lawyer (for whom they would expect transfer fees) and the activity of intermediary between members and their lawyers. Of course, as many people involved in the review of conditional royalties have acknowledged, the concept of “success fees” is hopelessly flawed. Just look at why it is not used in jurisdictions that have contingency fees. These legal systems recognize that the cap is the protection of the client. 18 Cf. the written evidence of Associated Newspapers (Ev 109) and Guardian Newspapers (Ev 115) concerning turcu  EWHC 799 QB; in Judge Eady stated: “[ ] There must be a considerable temptation for media defendants to pay something to be exempted from litigation for purely commercial reasons and without regard to the actual merits of a defence invoked . .