Can we tell our Solicitor to settle our medical negligence claim?

sunsu123

unholyangel said:

What are the reasons you think the other party want to settle? Have they made an offer? Conceded the case but disputed the amount of damages? 

CFA typically include a clause if you settle (or change your mind) against their advice, you can be liable to pay costs. Check your letter/terms of engagement to see what it says

we want to settle because the case has been going on for four years and they have told us due to delays in the court system because of covid and the general nature of multitrack cases, that it could easily last another two or more years! all the while we are aware that we can become liable for costs if something happens to one of us or if we do anything they dont like. its ridiculous. the amount of compensation at stake is really not worth the wait, they are getting atleast 3 times anything we would get in compensation, plus taking a 25% chunk of the compensation plus a 100% success fee. actual extortion. all i can hope is the defendants have more sense and dont want to drag things out by paying for excessive costs. its actually better for them to settle early. 

Manxman_in_exile

To be honest it's no more in your solicitors' interests to prolong this more than necessary than it is yours.

You can complain about NFNW lawyers, but if they weren't there, what would you do?  I'm a retired NHS manager and my wife a practising solicitor (in the public, not private, sector).  We are reasonably well off financially, but if we had a possible personal injury claim to make, I'm pretty certain we'd find it difficult to afford a solicitor and would probably go NWNF.  If you couldn't access a NWNF lawyer, could you afford to engage a lawyer on a PAYG basis and pay their fees - whether you win or lose?

Be careful what you wish for.  Without NWNF about 95% of people with winnable PI claims wouldn't be able to get to court in the first place to win anything at all.  And of course, a NWNF lawyer will tell you straight away if you've no hope in hell of winning your case - instead of continuing to take your money 'til you lose, and then bill you for more.

sunsu123

Manxman_in_exile said:

To be honest it's no more in your solicitors' interests to prolong this more than necessary than it is yours.

You can complain about NFNW lawyers, but if they weren't there, what would you do?  I'm a retired NHS manager and my wife a practising solicitor (in the public, not private, sector).  We are reasonably well off financially, but if we had a possible personal injury claim to make, I'm pretty certain we'd find it difficult to afford a solicitor and would probably go NWNF.  If you couldn't access a NWNF lawyer, could you afford to engage a lawyer on a PAYG basis and pay their fees - whether you win or lose?

Be careful what you wish for.  Without NWNF about 95% of people with winnable PI claims wouldn't be able to get to court in the first place to win anything at all.  And of course, a NWNF lawyer will tell you straight away if you've no hope in hell of winning your case - instead of continuing to take your money 'til you lose, and then bill you for more.

Its definitely a double edged sword, the problem is that their are so many restrictions in the CFA that you really have to consider whether its worth it or not. 

I agree its not worth the risk for the claimants solicitors either to drag things out past a certain point, especially after the part 36 offers have been made to risk a trial is alot, as they could lose all their costs and the closer you get to trial the more costly it gets. settling is always better unless the defence is adamant it can beat any part 36 offers or win outright. its better for both sides. 

steampowered

It is simply not true that the solicitor has an interest in dragging this out.

Right now, the solicitor is working for free. If the case successfully settles, they will get paid straight away. Plus they will not have to risk the uncertainty of a trial.

You say that this case has been going on for 4 years. That means the solicitor has been working on the case for 4 years without getting paid. Hardly extortion is it.

Manxman_in_exile

sunsu123 said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

To be honest it's no more in your solicitors' interests to prolong this more than necessary than it is yours.

You can complain about NFNW lawyers, but if they weren't there, what would you do?  I'm a retired NHS manager and my wife a practising solicitor (in the public, not private, sector).  We are reasonably well off financially, but if we had a possible personal injury claim to make, I'm pretty certain we'd find it difficult to afford a solicitor and would probably go NWNF.  If you couldn't access a NWNF lawyer, could you afford to engage a lawyer on a PAYG basis and pay their fees - whether you win or lose?

Be careful what you wish for.  Without NWNF about 95% of people with winnable PI claims wouldn't be able to get to court in the first place to win anything at all.  And of course, a NWNF lawyer will tell you straight away if you've no hope in hell of winning your case - instead of continuing to take your money 'til you lose, and then bill you for more.

Its definitely a double edged sword, the problem is that their are so many restrictions in the CFA that you really have to consider whether its worth it or not.

Really? 

Lets say you've suffered personal injury as the result of someone's possible negligence.  You've got no legal cover on your insurance but your injuries might be worth £5000 - £25000 (or whatever).  You can't afford to pay for a lawyer.  What do you do?

Well, you either (a) do nothing and forget about it because you can't afford to pay a lawyer, and be 100% of winning absolutely nothing at all, or (b) you enter into a NWNF arrangement and give yourself a better than zero chance of winning 65% - 75% of £5000 - £25000 (or whatever).

.Nothing in this life is certain but I know I'd go with the NWNF.  It's a no-brainer.  How can it not be worth it?

steampowered said:

It is simply not true that the solicitor has an interest in dragging this out.

Right now, the solicitor is working for free. If the case successfully settles, they will get paid straight away. Plus they will not have to risk the uncertainty of a trial.

You say that this case has been going on for 4 years. That means the solicitor has been working on the case for 4 years without getting paid. Hardly extortion is it.

I agree with all that.  I have absolutely no idea why people get worked up about NWNF lawyers.  If we (and by "we" I mean society) didn't have them people would be crying out about the injustice of not being able to access affordable legal representation.  It seems everybody wants everybody else to work for free - except themselves.

OP - ask your solicitors what the pros and cons are for you to try to reach a settlement.  Simples.  (Of course you may not get as good a deal as you could...)

sunsu123

steampowered said:

It is simply not true that the solicitor has an interest in dragging this out.

Right now, the solicitor is working for free. If the case successfully settles, they will get paid straight away. Plus they will not have to risk the uncertainty of a trial.

You say that this case has been going on for 4 years. That means the solicitor has been working on the case for 4 years without getting paid. Hardly extortion is it.

if you read my last post i never said its in their interest to drag it out either (maybe to a certain point but no longer) because the risks to them are great. i did mention the risks are great, thats not to say that solicitors dont like to build a certain amount of costs before settling a claim, because im sure they do. They want the claims that are more complex because that means more costs.

sunsu123

Manxman_in_exile said:

sunsu123 said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

To be honest it's no more in your solicitors' interests to prolong this more than necessary than it is yours.

You can complain about NFNW lawyers, but if they weren't there, what would you do?  I'm a retired NHS manager and my wife a practising solicitor (in the public, not private, sector).  We are reasonably well off financially, but if we had a possible personal injury claim to make, I'm pretty certain we'd find it difficult to afford a solicitor and would probably go NWNF.  If you couldn't access a NWNF lawyer, could you afford to engage a lawyer on a PAYG basis and pay their fees - whether you win or lose?

Be careful what you wish for.  Without NWNF about 95% of people with winnable PI claims wouldn't be able to get to court in the first place to win anything at all.  And of course, a NWNF lawyer will tell you straight away if you've no hope in hell of winning your case - instead of continuing to take your money 'til you lose, and then bill you for more.

Its definitely a double edged sword, the problem is that their are so many restrictions in the CFA that you really have to consider whether its worth it or not.

Really? 

Lets say you've suffered personal injury as the result of someone's possible negligence.  You've got no legal cover on your insurance but your injuries might be worth £5000 - £25000 (or whatever).  You can't afford to pay for a lawyer.  What do you do?

Well, you either (a) do nothing and forget about it because you can't afford to pay a lawyer, and be 100% of winning absolutely nothing at all, or (b) you enter into a NWNF arrangement and give yourself a better than zero chance of winning 65% - 75% of £5000 - £25000 (or whatever).

.Nothing in this life is certain but I know I'd go with the NWNF.  It's a no-brainer.  How can it not be worth it?

steampowered said:

It is simply not true that the solicitor has an interest in dragging this out.

Right now, the solicitor is working for free. If the case successfully settles, they will get paid straight away. Plus they will not have to risk the uncertainty of a trial.

You say that this case has been going on for 4 years. That means the solicitor has been working on the case for 4 years without getting paid. Hardly extortion is it.

I agree with all that.  I have absolutely no idea why people get worked up about NWNF lawyers.  If we (and by "we" I mean society) didn't have them people would be crying out about the injustice of not being able to access affordable legal representation.  It seems everybody wants everybody else to work for free - except themselves.

OP - ask your solicitors what the pros and cons are for you to try to reach a settlement.  Simples.  (Of course you may not get as good a deal as you could...)

because you settle when they decide. so if you want settle early, you cant till they say so, if you want to settle late and they want you to settle for less, you have to or pay their costs. if you die the you estate is liable for their costs. There are definite risks involved, like i said its double edged its not 100% in the claimants favour like they make it out to be, and as someone mentioned before, no costs doesnt necessarily mean no costs. 

Manxman_in_exile

You must have had all that explained to you before you entered into the agreement.  Didn't they also mention the possibility of purchasing insurance to cover all those other costs?  (After the Event insurance?)  If they didn't draw all this to your attention beforehand (and they should have done) then make a formal complaint to them and to the SRA.

As I said earlier, before entering into the NWNF agreement you had two choices if you couldn't afford to engage a solicitor on a normal basis: either (a) do nothing and be certain of getting 100% of nothing, or (2) go NWNF and have a greater than zero chance of getting a share of something.  I know which I'd choose.

It was me who pointed out that NWNF does not necessarily mean no costs - not that "... no costs doesnt necessarily mean no costs".

steampowered

sunsu123 said:

because you settle when they decide. so if you want settle early, you cant till they say so

That's not true. In a NWNF arrangement the client still has control over when to settle. When the client settles, the solicitor will be entitled to be paid, and may also be entitled to their success uplift. 

The restrictions on a standard NWNF agreement are actually more the other way around. If the Defendant makes a good settlement offer, and the client rejects that offer against the advice of their solicitor, the solicitor may be entitled to payment.

sunsu123

steampowered said:

sunsu123 said:

because you settle when they decide. so if you want settle early, you cant till they say so

That's not true. In a NWNF arrangement the client still has control over when to settle. When the client settles, the solicitor will be entitled to be paid, and may also be entitled to their success uplift. 

The restrictions on a standard NWNF agreement are actually more the other way around. If the Defendant makes a good settlement offer, and the client rejects that offer against the advice of their solicitor, the solicitor may be entitled to payment.

Thats what i originally assumed, just have had a few different opinions from people in regards to this.

We want to settle at this point and are not too fussed about how much compensation is awarded. we just dont want our solicitor to turn around and say the defendants offer is not good enough and that we shouldn't settle (even if we want to), and subsequently we have to pay all costs up until that point for settling against advice. 

however if a part 36 offer is not very high in compensation but agrees to covering the costs of our solicitors, i would assume it shouldn't matter if we agreed to settle for a lower amount unless they were annoyed that the 25% they would get from our compensation wasn't high enough? totally feel like i'm over thinking this   i assume they would take a middle ground though, that you could get more if you continue forward but its a risk and its better to not settle and leave us to decide, or something alone those lines.

Its only the offers that they may not like or think are "under settling" that they may say a big fat no to, in which case i assume that we would have to continue because if we settled against their advice they could claim costs from us instead, that's the only worry. 
 thanks for the responses everyone