SOLICITORS who advertise services on a "no win no fee" basis will soon have to tell clients that even if they do not win, they could still face legal costs.
New regulations due to take effect next month will curb "misleading" advertisements which state that clients only have to pay solicitors' fees if they win their civil actions for damages.
Such advertising has been criticised by the employers' organisation, IBEC and the insurance industry as "contributing to a compensation culture".
Under the Law Society's new regulations, future advertisements must explain that clients could be liable for costs and expenses awarded against them by the courts if they lose.
They will also have to make it clear that clients who lose may have to pay other costs such as expenses for medical examinations which were necessary for the damages claim.
The director general of the Law Society, Mr Ken Murphy, said the new regulations are "designed to prevent members of the public being misled by the `no win no fee' advertising and to clarify precisely what that means to ensure that clients are not subsequently taken by surprise in the event of losing a case . . . The client must know what the potential downside is and the Law Society is keen to see that no one is misled, albeit indirectly, by such claims in advertising."
Mr Murphy said the advertising regulations were accepted in principle by the council of the Law Society and it was "firmly expected" that they would be approved and come into effect by mid December. They replace the 1988 advertising regulations.
Mr Murphy said the `no win no fee' practice gives access to justice to people who would otherwise be denied it because of the absence of legal aid in civil cases.
He said the recent report to the Government by Deloitte and Touche vindicated the "no win no fee" system and found "no direct evidence" that it increased the number of liability claims.
The report, published last month, found that "no win no fee" advertisements in the Golden Pages "may be misleading" by implying that there was no downside if the plaintiff lost.