FA sadly a grammar school in Salford was not Eton.
I am speaking as an experienced (but no longer practicing Union official) who dealt with injuries: never was a pay-out worth the hassle. However, deciding to see if we were offering value, I ran cases we had won past advertised companies all of whom guaranteed at least five times what Thomsons had got!
Interesting that I have to be on Cameron's side when criticising ambulance-chasers! You wouldn't be biased would you?
"but exactly how would that be the fault of a lawyer, who (obviously) has no way of checking whether X worked for Z."
of course you can: it's called a phone call. I can do it. Oh sorry: professional ethics.
Sad preacher nailed upon the coloured door of time;
Insane teacher be there reminded of the rhyme.
There'll be no mutant enemy we shall certify;
Political ends, as sad remains, will die.
Joined: Feb 17 2002 Posts: 28357 Location: MACS0647-JD
Hillbilly_Red wrote:FA sadly a grammar school in Salford was not Eton.
I am speaking as an experienced (but no longer practicing Union official) who dealt with injuries: never was a pay-out worth the hassle.
What? So no inured employees should ever make a claim as it ain't worth the hassle? That sound pretty barking, but maybe I misunderstood? What hassle? And isn't taking care of hassle what you get a lawyer for?
Hillbilly_Red wrote:However, deciding to see if we were offering value, I ran cases we had won past advertised companies all of whom guaranteed at least five times what Thomsons had got!
What's that got to do with solicitors? You (presumably) know as well as I do that these sort of companies are pure ambulance chasers, and play no part in the process, except for trousering their fees?
What a ridiculous and pointless method anyway. Without giving full details of a case, how could you think anyone could sensibly give you any sort of meaningful valuation? If you really did this strange thing, for the purpose stated, then why didn't you follow it up and advise your affected members that it appeared from enquiries you had made that their claim had been substantially under-settled? If you were not going to accept the answers, why ask the questions?
Hillbilly_Red wrote:Interesting that I have to be on Cameron's side when criticising ambulance-chasers! You wouldn't be biased would you?
No. I wouldn't. I hate ambulance chasers.
Quote:of course you can: it's called a phone call. I can do it.
You actually want to pursue the point that if an employer gets a random phone call, they are likely to give out confidential data to some caller that they don't know from Adam?
Really?
You don't seem to know much about the claims process, with respect. I repeat; a letter of claim lands on employer's desk; they never employed the person; they write back saying they never heard of this person. Er, that's it. I really don't get how you perceive this "pretend employee" thing to be some sort of a real issue. Sounds like an utter red herring.
Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total
hassle: mine. Hours of unpaid work and a disappointed member.
the ringing: having been told by the "legal department" that the amounts won were typical, I followed up several comments from different members that they would have been better recompensated if they had not used the union. I decided to ring some well advertised firms on using (without giving away any personal information) cases on which I had been active ... all promised that if I used them damages of (usually) 10 -50 times what was won. I ran this past the legal department again who stated that the amounts promised were pipe smoke. Far enough, but if I was a member of the public and was suckered into these firms, I would have used them expecting a fabulous pay-out. The amounts would attract taking action. Such actions would aggravate the employers into believing "H&S" were the root of the problem: an attitude several private company owners have related to me.
Sorry but I need to log-off (as on another post)
Sad preacher nailed upon the coloured door of time;
Insane teacher be there reminded of the rhyme.
There'll be no mutant enemy we shall certify;
Political ends, as sad remains, will die.
Joined: Feb 17 2002 Posts: 28357 Location: MACS0647-JD
Hillbilly_Red wrote:hassle: mine. Hours of unpaid work and a disappointed member.
the ringing: having been told by the "legal department" that the amounts won were typical, I followed up several comments from different members that they would have been better recompensated if they had not used the union. I decided to ring some well advertised firms on using (without giving away any personal information) cases on which I had been active ... all promised that if I used them damages of (usually) 10 -50 times what was won. I ran this past the legal department again who stated that the amounts promised were pipe smoke. Far enough, but if I was a member of the public and was suckered into these firms, I would have used them expecting a fabulous pay-out.
All this sorry tale is, though, is a condemnation of seemingly misleading marketing by ... the very ambulance chasers that you (rightly) deprecate. You say if you were "suckered" into these firms, but you miss the point that you would not be, as they do not do the work, they sell the cases on.
Solicitors have a duty to both manage client expectations and from the outset on the available information provide an estimate of the value of the claim and the likely costs of getting it. I presume you haven't any evidence that lawyers, as opposed to ambulance chasers, were doing this?
If I was a lawyer picking up leads from such a firm, I think I'd get pretty pi$sed off pretty quickly with people trooping in telling me they'd been told their claim was worth 50X what it was, and anyway, at this meeting, once told the claim was only worth 1/50th of that, surely the disaffected claimant would simply choose not to bother? So even there, where is the "suckering" so far as the lawyer is concerned?
Hillbilly_Red wrote:The amounts would attract taking action.
For the reason I said, in practice, they really wouldn't.
Hillbilly_Red wrote:Such actions would aggravate the employers into believing "H&S" were the root of the problem:
That is nuts though, isn't it? Such actions can only reasonably instil a belief that ambulance chasers promising 10-50 x the true worth of a claim were the problem? What would H&S have done wrong? I don't follow that at all.
Hillbilly_Red wrote:... an attitude several private company owners have related to me.
Maybe they have, but surely not for a reason totally unconnected with H&S? And your reply should have been "Well get yourself a new H&S man, then, as the problem is the catalogue of daft things some companies' H&S men do based on unreasonable fear of and comprehensive misunderstanding of what H&S actually requires". This drives H&S nuts too. See their website.
Indeed, if you work at or know of someone working at a company whose H&S has decreed something nutty, the H&S has now even gone to the lengths of setting up a Myth Busters Challenge Panel to scrutinize such decisions.
it doesn't get much publicity. Had anyone on here ever even heard of it? But thankfully it is being used, and so making a start on dispelling the myths. Worth a read: Myth Busters Challenge Panel findings
Hillbilly_Red wrote:hassle: mine. Hours of unpaid work and a disappointed member.
the ringing: having been told by the "legal department" that the amounts won were typical, I followed up several comments from different members that they would have been better recompensated if they had not used the union. I decided to ring some well advertised firms on using (without giving away any personal information) cases on which I had been active ... all promised that if I used them damages of (usually) 10 -50 times what was won. I ran this past the legal department again who stated that the amounts promised were pipe smoke. Far enough, but if I was a member of the public and was suckered into these firms, I would have used them expecting a fabulous pay-out.
All this sorry tale is, though, is a condemnation of seemingly misleading marketing by ... the very ambulance chasers that you (rightly) deprecate. You say if you were "suckered" into these firms, but you miss the point that you would not be, as they do not do the work, they sell the cases on.
Solicitors have a duty to both manage client expectations and from the outset on the available information provide an estimate of the value of the claim and the likely costs of getting it. I presume you haven't any evidence that lawyers, as opposed to ambulance chasers, were doing this?
If I was a lawyer picking up leads from such a firm, I think I'd get pretty pi$sed off pretty quickly with people trooping in telling me they'd been told their claim was worth 50X what it was, and anyway, at this meeting, once told the claim was only worth 1/50th of that, surely the disaffected claimant would simply choose not to bother? So even there, where is the "suckering" so far as the lawyer is concerned?
Hillbilly_Red wrote:The amounts would attract taking action.
For the reason I said, in practice, they really wouldn't.
Hillbilly_Red wrote:Such actions would aggravate the employers into believing "H&S" were the root of the problem:
That is nuts though, isn't it? Such actions can only reasonably instil a belief that ambulance chasers promising 10-50 x the true worth of a claim were the problem? What would H&S have done wrong? I don't follow that at all.
Hillbilly_Red wrote:... an attitude several private company owners have related to me.
Maybe they have, but surely not for a reason totally unconnected with H&S? And your reply should have been "Well get yourself a new H&S man, then, as the problem is the catalogue of daft things some companies' H&S men do based on unreasonable fear of and comprehensive misunderstanding of what H&S actually requires". This drives H&S nuts too. See their website.
Indeed, if you work at or know of someone working at a company whose H&S has decreed something nutty, the H&S has now even gone to the lengths of setting up a Myth Busters Challenge Panel to scrutinize such decisions.
it doesn't get much publicity. Had anyone on here ever even heard of it? But thankfully it is being used, and so making a start on dispelling the myths. Worth a read: Myth Busters Challenge Panel findings
Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total
My point was and is that the false expectations raised by some lawyers (I can mention a case but cannot in public) have attracted claims in the hope of easy and excellent recompense when really there was no or limited recompense.
Iain (who I know) is and my past existence was in H&S.
Sad preacher nailed upon the coloured door of time;
Insane teacher be there reminded of the rhyme.
There'll be no mutant enemy we shall certify;
Political ends, as sad remains, will die.
Joined: Feb 17 2002 Posts: 28357 Location: MACS0647-JD
Hillbilly_Red wrote:so we agree
My point was and is that the false expectations raised by some lawyers (I can mention a case but cannot in public) have attracted claims in the hope of easy and excellent recompense when really there was no or limited recompense.
I'm glad you agree with me. However, the above was not your point. A lawyer raising false expectations in one case is not at all the same thing as what you originally said:
Quote:IMO H&S is not the problem. Lawyers promising fabulous pay-outs are.
That would only be "the problem" if it happened so much that it was kind of endemic in the trade, whereas you refer to a single case, and can't even give details of it. I think to claim from some isolated cases that such behaviour is "THE problem" is grossly unfair on the hundreds of lawyers doing the job properly and doing no such thing.
Isolated bad apple lawyers will always exist, same as any other trade. The main difference with solicitors is that people have probably the best recourse to compensation for professional negligence, coupled with millions of pounds' worth of compulsory insurance, and a tough disciplinary process in cases of wrongdoing and poor service, of anybody else that they may ever deal with.
So we certainly vehemently disagree that "Lawyers promising fabulous pay-outs" is "the" problem, and I know of no evidence that this is any sort of significant issue at all and if it was, the SRA has the ability and willingness to strike them off.
Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total
When a possible customer rings, they think they are talking to a solicitor ... if they are not then your "trade" union (The Law Society) has enough prowess to get rid of this problem... you haven't.
I have referred to more than one case where expectations (OK possibly not by solicitors) were raised when the reality is different.
The one case was not H&S but employment: the customer was told it could be won under H&S rules: once the evidence was handed in to the solicitor's office, he withdrew but the customer (member) had withdrawn our right to represent her ... result sacked and national exposure. I remember her saying to me, "My lawyer has said he's glad I've come to me as he will win this and I'll keep my job and be rewarded." The words are burned into my conscious.
Sad preacher nailed upon the coloured door of time;
Insane teacher be there reminded of the rhyme.
There'll be no mutant enemy we shall certify;
Political ends, as sad remains, will die.
Joined: Feb 17 2002 Posts: 28357 Location: MACS0647-JD
Hillbilly_Red wrote:When a possible customer rings, they think they are talking to a solicitor ... if they are not then your "trade" union (The Law Society) has enough prowess to get rid of this problem... you haven't.
Absolutely not, What powers does the Law Society have? For a start, it warned about the folly of allowing these sort of organisations but was ignored. The warnings were dismissed as pure self-interest, lawyers wanting to keep the work for themselves and not let anyone else into the market. Finally the government has after many years done a U-turn and decided to ban referral fees, but will struggle to do so as the industry of leeches is now so vast and so rich, they will struggle to control it.
I am certain that if someone was reported to the Law Society for impersonating a solicitor, they would act on that. But I doubt that would ever happen and what evidence, short of highly unlikely telephone recordings, could there be?
Hillbilly_Red wrote:I have referred to more than one case where expectations (OK possibly not by solicitors) were raised when the reality is different.
And I'm sure ambulance chasers will say pretty much anything to get their commission. Precisely because they are in reality unregulated in how they go about their business.
Hillbilly_Red wrote:The one case was not H&S but employment: the customer was told it could be won under H&S rules: once the evidence was handed in to the solicitor's office, he withdrew but the customer (member) had withdrawn our right to represent her ... result sacked and national exposure. I remember her saying to me, "My lawyer has said he's glad I've come to me as he will win this and I'll keep my job and be rewarded." The words are burned into my conscious.
Not sure that says much at all. From what you say, on the face of it, based on what client said, a case worth investigating, then when the evidence is gathered it doesn't stack up, so lawyer rightly withdraws. Isn't that in fact a case where the lawyer should be praised for not "pursuing a hopeless case"?
Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 141 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
