Solicitor wants 25% of my personal injury compensation

Quentin

Digb wrote: »

I was going to refer him to a non profit charitable organization....

Now you are talking.

This sounds exactly what this money saving forum is about.

Passing on good tips like this.

You can safely tell us which organisation will take over and get us compensation without charging a penny!

If they are as good as you say they could get mentioned in the weekly email.

Digb

Quentin wrote: »

Now you are talking.

This sounds exactly what this money saving forum is about.

Passing on good tips like this.

You can safely tell us which organisation will take over and get us compensation without charging a penny!

If they are as good as you say they could get mentioned in the weekly email.

Any scheme operated by this organization charges the costs to the association for which the scheme operates.

If you are a paraplegic as a result of a road accident, your doctors get a fee for their medical reports, the barrister drafts the court proceedings for a fixed fee, you pay fixed fees for the court hearings...but the solicitor charges a percentage for doing what? Steering you through a court process which is massively more expensive and time consuming than private alternatives, because it justifies his bill, plus the "mark up" of 50 or 75% on top of his fees for "success".

Litigation around personal injury is, in my opinion, a scam on insurers, premium payers and those injured. The rules of court, the Jackson committee, LCJ Harry Woolf and many others are trying to move away from court based litigation systems. Find out where LCJ Woolf now operates from....

BertTheRaccoon

So when an insurer refuses to co-operate under your scheme, how are they brought to book? What "independent" method of representation does the client have when it comes to liability/ contributory negligence apportionment, damages and the actual items of claim they can pursue?

I can see your scheme may have merits for low value straight forward stuff, but a paraplegic who needs a new house built and life long care etc?

Digb

BertTheRaccoon wrote: »

So when an insurer refuses to co-operate under your scheme, how are they brought to book? What "independent" method of representation does the client have when it comes to liability/ contributory negligence apportionment, damages and the actual items of claim they can pursue?

I can see your scheme may have merits for low value straight forward stuff, but a paraplegic who needs a new house built and life long care etc?

In a large case you would have advice from lawyers, of course, to make sure you have got the right result. The problem with paper based court systems is that you are being charged high fees by a professional whose expertise is in getting your case into a heavily congested court system which can take years to get to a hearing and filling out forms which are subject to attack with "motions", or are deficient because of some formal problem with them.

There is an even more radical way that our friend could avoid costs. Many insurers operate a system called "third party capture". You have an accident and the other sides insurer writes to you and suggests you deal directly with them, they arrange for you to see a doctor via a medical bureau. No solicitors involved at all. If they can save two sets of fees, and you are happy with the doctor, or you find one yourself, then you can always just use a lawyer to get advice on the level of the claim and any types of compensation you might be entitled to, such as loss of enjoyment of life. In the US they hand out damages for TMJ in whiplash cases. This is temporo mandibular joint dysfunction. If you have a whiplash it sometimes throws your jaw out of alignment. It is not compensated for in the UK though but if you have a clicking noise in your jaw, then you have it...

The reason the insurer would accept this is because it saves on two sets of legal fees which is huge. Theoretically it should make it easier to get more compensation for yourself. Obviously you have to be careful in taking this type of approach but the issue is, really, who has control over the system, and the costs, you or your lawyer. If you subject yourself to a court system which only the lawyer can negotiate through, draft proceedings etc, then you hand over your cheque book to him. If you use a system which is entirely bespoke to the case and involves minimal paper exchange, flexible systems etc, then you can bring in lawyers on your terms, on a fixed fee basis and why would you use a solicitor? Their expertise is in procedure, not quantum or heads of claim. They pass your case to a lowly clerk to put time on the file, or at least record time to the file and rely on barristers to express opinions and advise you whether to accept a settlement, and represent you in court.

The problem with my approach is that there is an industry making £14 billion a year out of this... And, they are all advertising as though they will get you a quick result through claims direct type web sites which give the impression that they have some quick easy way to settle a case. There is an email system now called RTA Portal which allows them to send documents through to insurers and puts insurers under pressure to settle or the costs go up. This system is failing though and the people running it know it is failing. Insurers don't like it and it takes you down the litigation path which stings you with the 25% deduction for costs if it doesn't settle, and solicitors like to find a way of making the case not settle so they can get their full fee.

That is the idea of it. I really did not mean to get into an argument here. What I am curious about is how one does go about marketing this via a money saving website but if coming to a forum is forbidden then there is no point my posting here because I don't like being criticized when I am making no money from this, may not ever, and was only trying to help someone, who hasn't even responded to my post.


I am not intending to offer ADR services anyway. I am working on a software application.

Crazy_Jamie

Digb wrote: »

If you are a paraplegic as a result of a road accident, your doctors get a fee for their medical reports, the barrister drafts the court proceedings for a fixed fee, you pay fixed fees for the court hearings...but the solicitor charges a percentage for doing what? Steering you through a court process which is massively more expensive and time consuming than private alternatives, because it justifies his bill, plus the "mark up" of 50 or 75% on top of his fees for "success".

The solicitor manages the case, ensures directions are complied with, collates disclosure, drafts witness statements, ensures that court orders are complied with, negotiates with the other side, advises as to prospects or steps to take, drafts instructions to counsel and experts, puts together trial bundles, and so on and so on. Given that you supposedly were a solicitor, I am quite surprised that you asked the question in anything other than a rhetorical manner. Solicitors play a vital role in the process, and good solicitors are very much worth their fees, a view which no doubt you once held even if you don't any longer.

I don't know how the average member with no experience of the system is reacting to your posts, or whether indeed they can make much sense out of them, but certainly from my perspective as someone with fairly extensive knowledge and experience of litigation generally your posts are littered with issues. I'm by no means suggesting that the current system is perfect, but from what you have written so far the alternative that you seem to be pushing has little merit as far as I can see in terms of solving these perceived issues.

Digb

Yes, all of those things are essential in a court based system. But the issues are, what are the claims permissible, what evidence is needed to prove them and how much is it worth. None of those are matters which solicitors specialize in. You only need to prepare paper instructions to barristers, tie pretty pink ribbons round them, prepare trial bundles etc, in a system which is paper based. The Crown Prosecution Service is now pretty much electronic with no paper even in court where prosecutors use tablets. The use of electronic media is now being used around the world by adjudicators and prosecutors in far more serious cases than personal injury. Solicitors are becoming redundant. The RTA Portal is already entirely electronic as is the bulk court in Preston. The UK government is content to see solicitors charge their clients because they are pushing people away from public financed courts when there are private dispute resolution services which do a better and cheaper job... Solicitors services are integral to a system which is antiquated and outmoded, just as a blacksmith is integral to a society relying on horsepower.

Digb

I was posting in response to a person asking if there is a cheaper route than going to a solicitor. There are a number of alternatives, ADR is one, claims management is another, third party capture is another.

ADR does not soak up a quarter of the judgment and the reason for that is that solicitors litigate through traditional court based processes because it yields the highest return in fees to themselves.

The movement now is away from this type of system and ADR is written into the English rules of civil procedure. It is the way of the future. I don't expect our poster or anyone here is going to rush our an hire a mediator on the basis of what I was posting. I was pointing out why solicitors are now taking 25% of settlements and pointing out where this is leading, which is towards simpler, quicker and cheaper means of getting a judicial decision on how much a broken leg is worth from a qualified, impartial adjudicator, as opposed to the present situation where settlements are mainly based on cost and risk avoidance considerations with a judge rarely ever getting hold of the case. I think you should watch My Cousin Vinny, in which Vinny admits that in 5 years practicing he had never presented a case in court. Personal injury cases are notorious for settling once the lawyers have made their fees. The insurer sets a reserve early on, has the money there to pay out and the lawyers need to protract the litigation to justify being paid their portion. Now things are changing because the government is wise to this and is forcing people to think about taking up court time and racking up huge court and legal costs which push up insurance premiums. (my first PI case...I got a medical report, drafted a long letter...I got $20,000 in fees for about 10 hours work)

Just saying....

BertTheRaccoon

Are you actually aware of what costs UK solicitors are working to now???

Crazy_Jamie

Digb wrote: »

Yes, all of those things are essential in a court based system. But the issues are, what are the claims permissible, what evidence is needed to prove them and how much is it worth. None of those are matters which solicitors specialize in.

No, but they specialise in managing cases to their conclusion. I'm still not entirely clear on why you think that case management is no longer required.

Digb wrote:

You only need to prepare paper instructions to barristers, tie pretty pink ribbons round them, prepare trial bundles etc, in a system which is paper based. The Crown Prosecution Service is now pretty much electronic with no paper even in court where prosecutors use tablets. The use of electronic media is now being used around the world by adjudicators and prosecutors in far more serious cases than personal injury. Solicitors are becoming redundant.

Why would a transition from paper to electronic methods make solicitors redundant? The same tasks still need to be undertaken, just under a different format.

Digb wrote:

The RTA Portal is already entirely electronic as is the bulk court in Preston. The UK government is content to see solicitors charge their clients because they are pushing people away from public financed courts when there are private dispute resolution services which do a better and cheaper job... Solicitors services are integral to a system which is antiquated and outmoded, just as a blacksmith is integral to a society relying on horsepower.

The job that courts and dispute resolution services do are different. ADR encourages parties to reach a settlement. Courts adjudicated and make decisions on disputes as to facts and law. The two roles are distinct. You cannot force parties into settlement. Besides which, there are plenty of cases that settle quickly and easily through relatively brief correspondence between solicitors and insurers. There is no reason to push parties into ADR in such circumstances.

Digb wrote:

Personal injury cases are notorious for settling once the lawyers have made their fees.

Are they? Because technically legal costs continue to build until a case does settle. Cases that do not settle have higher costs involved. So at what point exactly have lawyers 'made their fees'? The reality is that your statement here is nonsense; most solicitors work in the best interests of their client. Unless you were one of the minority who don't during your time in practice, you are being entirely disingenuous here.

Digb wrote:

my first PI case...I got a medical report, drafted a long letter...I got $20,000 in fees for about 10 hours work

That sounds like a hugely exaggerated example to me. If it isn't you either charged a grossly excessive and unjustified hourly rate, or you claimed for a significant amount of work that had not been done, and in doing so clearly broke rules that would call your professional integrity well into question. Either way plenty of fault lies with you, even in the context of the industry norms.

Solicitors' costs have been too high for too long. That is what Jackson addresses. You clearly don't seem to have much if any grasp on what those rule changes are, or what the current fee restrictions are. Or indeed how Judges are not applying those changes. The result is that you are using outdated or plain inaccurate examples to address problems that no longer exist to the same level that you seem to think.

Digb

Your are talking about costs recoverable from the other side, ie., the insurance company..

Contingecy lawyers, particularly in the US, charge the insurere party and party costs...and on top of that they take one third from the compensation.

When I came to England to practice solicitors got their full payment of costs from the insurer. Jackson is restricting what insurers have to pay and lawyers will make up the difference, as Randy Watson has seen, out of the recovery.

I am afraid it is inevitable. So, if you get a million for a spinal injury eventually you could get only two thirds of that because your lawyer takes the rest. Barristers charge a fixed fee, do the pleadings, trials, advise on quantum. Solicitors handle procedure, manage the case through an increasingly redundant litigation process, and have a huge influence over how much they are paid. You cannot say that charging a percentage of a compensation award reflects the work they do because getting medical reports involves the same amount of work regardless of the injury. The doctors don't get a percentage of the recovery, just a fixed fee which depends on the complexity of the report they write. Solicitors charge what the market, a disabled person, can bear. It is not more difficult taking a more serious case to court, same paperwork, but they get more if their client is worse off. Talk about preying on the weakest. Particularly in fully subrogated insurer v insurer fully comp'd cases, litigating through the courts is not only a massive waste of time and money, it verges on a scam on insurers by solicitors. Solicitors costs in those sorts of cases run at 90% of the value of the case!!!

One firm I worked for ensured that claims mangers kept sending work to them by taking the managers to strip clubs where the girls., to quote a partner in the firm, "shoved it in their faces". So if you want to portray insurance/PI lawyers as saintly with the best interests of the insurance industry and their clients at heart, sorry, I don't live on that cloud anymore.

Anyway, I am not posting here any more. I have exhausted this topic. Lawyers overcharge in PI cases just like car repairers charge more if they can get it back from an insurer. Everyone knows that. Some people are trying to do something about that. I just came here to float an idea, not to get business, offered a bit of advice, did not PM anyone trying to lure them into hiring me. I was interested in finding out how one might, if one were wanting to introduce a money saving scheme, get a "site" like this interested. Going on a forum where people immediately jump on you for supposedly having some sinister motive rather than sharing ideas, and also where people seem to think solicitors are ok when the government is hammering them for overcharging, doesn't float my boat.