In Defence of the Lawyers (Compensation culture)

Member Name: pussycat

Product:	Compensation culture
Date:	30/01/01 (145 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Compensation is necessary in deserving cases, a specialist lawyer will protect the client's interest and ensure they get a just settlement, 'no win, no fee' system allows deserving cases to reach court despite client's lack of money

Disadvantages: Open to abuse, trivial cases get large sums of compensation, some money grabbing lawyers, leads to excessive regulation of all aspects of daily life

Having read a selection of the opinions written here regarding compensation claims, I sense that an opinion defending the role of solicitors in the compensation culture that currently prevails may not be well received. However, I feel that something needs to be said to clarify the position of lawyers involved in personal injury claims. I shall declare my interest at the outset - I am a lawyer (not personal injury though) so please feel free to direct any anti-lawyer jokes my way but no personal abuse (cos I'm a lovely person really!)

Anyway, to get to the main thrust of my opinion, there is a great deal of criticism about the contribution made my bloodsucking lawyers to the increasingly tendency to litigate over the slightest incident. Firstly, I would like to say that I agree that the current situation is way over the top. There has been a great deal of publicity over some excessively trivial claims which are encouraging others to jump on the bandwagon and try for some 'free' money from an insurance company. The introduction of the 'no win, no fee' system whereby people get legal representation for free on the agreement that they will pay a percentage of their compensation award to the solicitor if they are successful in many ways encourages such people to 'have a go' as they have nothing to loose.

The other side of the coin is that this system enables people with deserving claims but with insufficient funds to pursue a claim to have access to good legal advice. The income threshold for Legal Aid seems to get lower every year so many many people find themselves in the position of knowing that they have a good case but having no money to pursue this in court. The 'no win, no fee' system ensures that these people have access to the courts.

However, the approach of some law firms to personal injury claims is truly deplorable. I was waiting for a friend in a casulty department not long ago and they
had a television playing advertisements for different law firms who would help you sue over your accident. That truly is ambulance chasing! Nevertheless, again trying to present both sides of the argument, this could be exactly the stage at which people need to be reminded of the availability of free legal advice so that they remember to keep a record of events and witnesses which may prove to be valuable if their case does reach court.

I do appreciate that these advertisements and other like them do attract undeserving claims. This has led to some absurd rules in all aspects of life as individuals and organisations seek to protect themselves from the possibility of being sued. The well-known and extreme examples are the ones given here on dooyoo - the doctor who refused to help a person suffering a heart attack and the banning of conkers in some schools. There are other, even more trivial examples, that I have encountered recently. My hairdresser refused to colour my hair unless I had a skin test to ensure I was not allergic to the hair dye. She says that if they were to go ahead and dye my hair without a test, I could sue them if anything went wrong. Now I have to admit that I have had hair cuts in the past that have been so bad that they have caused me serious psychological damage, but I have never actually had an allergic reaction to hair dye, so why do I have to have this test everty time I want my hair done? It only takes a couple of minutes to do but it does mean I have make a special trip to the hairdressers that was not previously necessary. Equally, my husband was refused a plaster from the university first aider as she could not be sure that he was not allergic to plasters. Now I have a little bracelet that says that I am allergic to penicillin but who is going to wear one that announces to the world that you are allergic to plasters. Moreover, will be now need a bracelet that says that we are not allergic to plasters if we want to be
giving one following a minor scrape? This is the situation that this compensation culture is creating.

Whilst I accept that some lawyers are disreputable ambulance chasers with an eye on their bank balance who will take any case that has a chance of success, whoever trivial, I also believe that there is a genuine need for personal injury specialists to deal with genuine claims. If a person is involved in a serious accident, they do deserve compensation to ensure that their lifestyle is maintained to the pre-accident standard, in so far as this is possible. Insurance companies have a three stage system of settling claims which involves a relatively low initial offer, an increased offer if you start court action and an 'at the courtroom door' offer which is usually made within minutes of the case being called into court. This is designed to take advantage of a complainant who is feeling nervous and uncertain about the whole legal process. The offer is usually made in a way that emphasises the uncertainty of the outcome of legal proceedings and the possibility that the claimant will come away with nothing. Most people would be vulnerable at this stage of the proceedings and be pressured into accepting less money than they deserve just in case things go wrong for them in court. A good personal injury solicitor will have explained the process to the client so that they are not as nervous, he or she will be there with the client to reassure them and, most importantly, they will be able to explain the methods that the courts use to calculate the quantum of compensation so that the client has an idea of what it is reasonable to expect.

Some people do deserve large sums of compensation as a result of an accident and these people need proper representation to ensure that they achieve a just settlement in court. Equally, they may need to take advantage of the 'no win, no fee' situation to ensure that they actually make it to court.
In such situations, a lawyer is an absoluate necessity.

Summary: