Solicitor wants 25% of my personal injury compensation

Crazy_Jamie

Digb wrote: »

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.

As I have already mentioned, general damages are uplifted by 10% in any event to reflect contingency possibilities. That means a total possible 'loss' of 15%, though plenty of solicitors are not charging success fees. Your statement that eventually people could lose one third of their damages is just sensationalistic nonsense.

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.

No one ever did suggest that a percentage charge reflects work; it covers the risk of losing, as original success fees did. Or did you forget that under CFAs solicitors and barristers get nothing if the case is unsuccessful?

I genuinely don't know whether you are deliberately attempting to mislead people with these statements that you're making, or whether you simply are holding yourself out to have knowledge that you do not have. Either way the number of holes in your statements is quite staggering for someone who supposedly has decades of experience in litigation.

It is not more difficult taking a more serious case to court, same paperwork

You seriously don't think it is more difficult to take a one month whiplash case to court than it is a catastrophic PI case? You are joking at this point, right?

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.

But personal injury cases are not fully subrogated insurer v insurer fully comp'd cases, because personal injury is an uninsured loss. Another fundamental error to add to your list. At this stage I am genuinely questioning what litigation experience you have. I can't imagine any half competent personal injury solicitor making the sort of errors that you're making in your posts.

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.

Whilst your example is extreme, how did you think the business world worked before this? Referral fees were the most common form of incentive, though they are now banned.

Some people are trying to do something about that.

One person is. He's called Lord Justice Rupert Jackson. You could perhaps stand to glance over his reforms one more time before you seek to get involved in discussions like this again.

I just came here to float an idea, not to get business

And for all of your lengthy posts I still for the life of me I still cannot say what that idea is. Says it all really.

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.

I have never suggested that you have a sinister motive. I have challenged your assertions based on my own knowledge and experience. And whilst those reading this thread will come to their own conclusions, my own view is that your 'ideas' and assertions have been found badly wanting.

BertTheRaccoon

Couldn't agree more

Trebor2

Hi

It is correct the Law Changed in April due in the main to those 'Crash for Cash' incidents that have put up everyone's motor premiums.

Solicitors are no longer able to recover their costs from the other insurer so they in the main have decided to cap their costs at 25% but in some instances this may also rise.

If you have been offered a Conditional Fee Agreement based on a cap of 25% then you are not being ripped off, they are just ensuring that they can cover their costs and they take out an 'After the Event Insurance' to cover you should the case go against you, they may, or may not, pass the cost of this onto you as well.

Hope that helps

Crazy_Jamie

Trebor2 wrote: »

Hi

It is correct the Law Changed in April due in the main to those 'Crash for Cash' incidents that have put up everyone's motor premiums.

Solicitors are no longer able to recover their costs from the other insurer so they in the main have decided to cap their costs at 25% but in some instances this may also rise.

If you have been offered a Conditional Fee Agreement based on a cap of 25% then you are not being ripped off, they are just ensuring that they can cover their costs and they take out an 'After the Event Insurance' to cover you should the case go against you, they may, or may not, pass the cost of this onto you as well.

Hope that helps

This post is almost entirely incorrect, for the following reasons;

1) The changes were not brought in due to 'crash for cash' incidents. 'Crash for cash' refers to fraudulent accidents involving an innocent third party that are induced by the Claimant, such as in 'slam on' incidents. It was the costs of civil litigation generally that prompted the changes, not fraud specifically.

2) Solicitors are able to recover their base profit costs from the other side. They are no longer able to recover a success fee from the other side, which was the 'uplift' element of the previous CFA regime. It is the success fee that can now come out of the client's damages.

3) ATE policies are now more or less redundant because ATE premiums can now no longer be recovered as a disbursement. The reason why they are no longer needed is because of the one way costs shifting provisions whereby Defendants can now generally not recover their costs from unsuccessful Claimants, so there is nothing for the ATE insurance to cover.

L_d_2

The changes came through in April and yes your solicitor is correct: they cannot claim all expenses back from the insurers/losing party.

I don't know if it has been mentioned as I haven't read all of the posts, however, make sure that they are dealing with just your personal injury. If the other party admits fault you should not lose any of your money for any repairs etc to the solicitor as those finances are not up for grabs - the insurers for the person at fault must make right the damage. Were you in a car or on a bike? If it was a car accident is this legal cover not covered by your insurence? If it was a pedal cycle accident try KLS Law - they seem to be charging 10% of money awarded (but I know that as a pedal cyclist - it may be more for motorists). I do know that I contacted a number of firms after my recent accident (post the changes) and 25% seems to be the going figure.

Parking_Trouble

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

There are a few things about this post that don't make sense to me, all stemming from your description of these incidents as 'LVI', by which I presume you mean Low Velocity Impact? If I am wrong about that then that's my mistake. If I'm correct, then the post really doesn't make sense, for the following reasons:

i) The costs are actually too low; an LVI case that runs to trial will result in legal costs far in excess of what you've quoted.
ii) A £1200 NHS bill would be highly unusual at best for an LVI case.
iii) Any accident that writes off a car is certainly not an LVI.
iv) If breach of duty was admitted (as it usually is in LVI cases), the Defendant likely should take a large chunk of the blame for the credit hire charges being that high, because the pre accident value of the vehicle should be paid quickly in those circumstances
v) In general terms, you cannot blame the Claimant if a Defendant takes an LVI argument to trial and loses. The fault there has to lie with the Defendant for the increased fees.

I do appreciate what you're saying, but I cannot stress enough how inadvisable that approach is. As I have previously stated, there are plenty of solicitors out there who are not charging any success fee at the moment, let alone at 25%. Taking the time to find one of those will be time better spent than trying to negotiate damages with no knowledge of how to value injuries.

Ah! My misuse of the term LVI perhaps? The case I quoted was settled by the insurer and the PI claims did not go through court.

Crazy_Jamie

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

Ah! My misuse of the term LVI perhaps? The case I quoted was settled by the insurer and the PI claims did not go through court.

That makes a lot more sense. LVI is a term used specifically for when the Defendant alleges that the collision happened at a speed where the Claimant could not physically have been injured. Going back and looking at your example, that all seems about right, though it should be remembered that your example comes from a case that would have been started (and indeed finished) before the new changes had come into effect. Costs figures would not be that high now on cases settled pre litigation in simple RTAs. Indeed, the ATE premiums are not recoverable at all.

Randy_Watson

There is a firm in Sheffield who are starting to advertise their 'no deductions' service - they are called PM Law.

Surely there must be others who are adopting a similar approach but I couldn't seem to find any.

ACG

I have to admit, i have not read through all 4 pages, but is there any reason why you do not think you should pay a solicitor (or anyone) for their service?

If your so against paying, go and represent yourself?

Theyre only charging you if you win - to me thats a no lose situation.

Quentin

ACG wrote: »

....but is there any reason why you do not think you should pay a solicitor (or anyone) for their service?

If your so against paying, go and represent yourself?......

Whats wrong with coming here to find out who will do it without wanting a quarter of the compensation?

Why would anyone (who is a "moneysaver") elect to pay a solicitor if you can get it done for "no deductions"?