I’m delighted to announce that specialist injury claims solicitor Rebecca Wood will be joining us at Ibbotson Brady Solicitors in Leeds on the 1st September 2015.
Rebecca is actually re-joining us, having first started with us in 2003 as a trainee solicitor. She qualified as a solicitor in 2005 and remained with us until 2008. We have always stayed in touch and now seems the perfect time for her to come back.
Rebecca is a Grade A litigator and is vastly experienced in personal injury claim litigation. She is a person who really cares about her clients and fights very hard and with compassion to achieve a great outcome for them. She is a terrific addition to our team and a great person to have around.
As a firm we are now into our 15th year and we continue to go from strength to strength. I know that a huge part of our success is down to our wonderful clients and staff. Rebecca understands that we have chosen never to go down the path of running a conveyor belt factory style firm. Every single one of our clients is an important individual to us. Those high service values suit us and our clients.
I’m really looking forward to Rebecca starting with us for a second time.
No more “Free iPad if you claim” deals and a tough new anti-fraud provision comes in for injury claims
John Ibbotson of Ibbotson Brady Solicitors comments:
On the 12th of February 2015, the MOJ (Ministry of Justice) announced that new measures had been passed into law in the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 which aims to further tackle the perceived, and in some cases real, problem of insurance fraud. They are expected to come into force in April 2015, just before the election.
The new law contains sections aimed at dealing with sharp marketing practices and also affects court proceedings.
The Act bans the offering of inducements like iPads, laptops or cash up front to potential new injury claim clients coaxing them to bring a claim.
It also says that the courts will throw out personal injury cases completely where the claimant has been found to be “fundamentally dishonest”, unless the court thinks that doing so would cause “substantial injustice”. Rather worryingly, neither of these terms is defined by the new law.
In reality, the prohibition of “inducements” to bring a claim, which has long been called for by Justice Secretary Chris Grayling, has been welcomed by large parts of the wider legal community, me included. It always struck me as a grubby practice, usually adopted by law firms run on a “factory farm” basis, rather than by good lawyers with a personal touch and a genuine concern for their clients.
Unfortunately, I am much more worried by the introduction of the “fundamental dishonesty” test. It has generally been met with deep and genuine concern by decent and honest claimants and their lawyers, contrasting with the joy felt in defendant orientated quarters.
Kerry Underwood, a very well known and respected solicitor in the field, of Underwoods Solicitors, has expressed strong and clear views on it and how it could affect personal injury claims massively.
Kerry explains in his blog, kerryunderwood.wordpress.com, that the new law requires a court to dismiss the whole of an injury compensation claim if it is satisfied, merely “on the balance of probabilities” and not even “beyond reasonable doubt”, that the claimant has been fundamentally dishonest in relation to any part of the claim.
He says, “Thus fundamental dishonesty in relation to, for example, an aspect of future special damages (which are financial losses) means that the whole case, including the general damages claim (which are damages for the pain and suffering of the injuries), is lost. Likewise an exaggeration of symptoms, if that is held to be fundamental dishonesty, means that a client loses the whole claim including the claim for his written-off vehicle caused by the other party’s negligence”.
I very much share his concerns. It does not feel well thought through and fair; in fact it appears very likely to become disproportionately draconian and some poor claimants are going to suffer. Blatant frauds and blatant exaggerations in claims are already being caught out and punished. This feels like a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Kerry adds, “None of us know how these draconian and unprecedented provisions will be applied”.
He then goes on to imagine what might happen in cases under the new law, as follows.
“A claim is brought. Liability is admitted. Past specials (which are financial losses) are agreed and paid at £40,000. Generals (the pain and suffering damages) are agreed and paid at £30,000. There is a dispute about future loss of earnings and that issue goes to court and the judge finds that the claimant had an unrealistic view of his future career prospects and has been fundamentally dishonest in his future loss of earnings claim.
Bang goes the whole award and the claimant must refund the £70,000. Admissions in personal injury cases are now meaningless.
Satellite litigation will not begin to describe what will happen; it will be constellation litigation”.
Quite. Very worrying indeed. In reality, I think that it is likely that clarity will only be achieved once the provisions have been tested in court. Some argue that the term “substantial injustice” was deliberately put in place in order to give the courts some flexibility and to ensure that the new regulations are applied fairly. In other words, if the judge has a bit of sympathy overall with the claimant then he or she might use this “get out” provision to avoid having to dismiss the whole claim.
I predict that the definitions of “fundamental dishonesty” and “substantial injustice” are going to be played out in the courts for years to come. I very much fear that some poor, genuine claimants are going to suffer as guinea pigs for this new law.
In summary, I very much like the inducement ban, but I am deeply, deeply worried by the whole “fundamental dishonesty” debacle. I score the government 5/10. Must do better.
If you think your solicitor might have made a mistake that has caused you a loss, it can be a daunting prospect considering bringing a claim against them and you might have no obvious way of funding a claim.
So, is it possible to bring a claim in these circumstances on a “no win, no fee” basis?
I certainly consider offering clients this basis for funding such a claim here at Ibbotson Brady Solicitors Limited. However, these claims are rarely straightforward.
First of all, I have to establish whether there are any other means of funding the case, such as through trade union funding, legal expenses insurance, privately paying or third party funding (in other words, somebody paying the legal fees for you).
Next, I have to establish whether there are sufficient merits to warrant considering acting on a “no win, no fee” basis. It is often appropriate to agree to take limited steps at the beginning, to enable the merits of the claim to be considered further, for example, by agreeing to proceed only to the obtaining and consideration of the original solicitors’ file on a “no win, no fee” basis. At that point I can take stock, see if the case looks strong and consider future funding.
These cases are notoriously difficult to win. They are always against sophisticated and tenacious professional opponents, with similarly sophisticated and tenacious insurers. Professional reputations are at stake and so they are almost always hefty “multi-track claims” (big and complex) and often need court proceedings. They demand a lot of time and attention and, if done correctly, ought to be conducted by a Grade A lawyer (very senior).
I am a Grade A lawyer.
It is a bald fact that bringing and, hopefully, succeeding with a professional negligence claim is never as good as the original solicitors having got things right in the first place. If the claim is a money claim, then even in successful claims the “return” will not usually be as good as having won in the first place would have been. My clients have to manage their expectations accordingly.
Bearing all of the above points in mind, the factors that I tell my clients that they ought to consider before signing up to a “no win, no fee” agreement to bring a professional negligence claim include:
- If the claim fails you will not have to pay me
- I will consider on a case by case basis promising that if you win your claim you will keep at least a certain percentage of your damages, so that it is worthwhile you proceeding
- I will discuss with you at all appropriate stages and advise upon whether any suitable insurance is needed in your claim, often referred to as “after the event insurance” or ATE, to protect you from having to pay your opponent’s costs. In my experience of professional negligence claims, these policies are almost always bespoke and usually no meaningful proposal can even be submitted for such insurance until all of the facts are known. Policies are usually quite expensive due to the nature of these claims, but particular consideration ought to be given to this, especially before any proceedings are issued.
- In our agreements there is a 14 day cooling off period
This is only a very basic summary of the principles that I consider. Every professional negligence case is unique and there is no substitute for reading and considering the “conditional fee agreement” (“no win, no fee”) itself with me.
Ibbotson Brady Solicitors Ltd, Park House, Park Square West, Leeds, LS1 2PW
Telephone 0113 3663022
Pothole Claims Solicitor – John Ibbotson being interviewed for BBC documentary
Landmark Films are in Leeds at the moment making a BBC documentary about potholes in the city.
The producers telephoned John Ibbotson at Ibbotson Brady Solicitors Limited in Leeds to ask if he might contribute, being a local solicitor with great experience of accidents and injuries caused by people walking, running or cycling into or over potholes. Having interviewed several people at the Highway Authority, Leeds City Council, they want to apply some balance by talking to a lawyer who has seen the potential consequences of nasty accidents caused by potholes.
John will be interviewed on Thursday, the 20th November 2014 at the site of an accident in South Leeds where one of his clients was very badly injured when he fell off his bicycle after inadvertently riding into a pothole.
The gentleman in question suffered very nasty fractures and was still having surgery and treatment two and a half years after the accident. The pothole in question was very nasty and long-standing.
We have a whole page of our website about these claims here. They are tricky to establish, but can be valuable if serious injuries have been suffered.
John will do his best to give the balanced views of a lawyer helping people who have been hurt by potholes. As a local council tax payer he understands and appreciates that the Council must defend itself, where it can. However, when they fail in their duties and responsibilities as the local Highway Authority, then they ought to expect claims to be made when someone is hurt.
There is a difficult balance for Local Authorities to apply between maintaining, inspecting and repairing the roads and pavements and paying out claims for where they have failed to maintain, inspect or repair them. In an ideal world, the Council would also have sufficient resources to keep roads and pavements in an excellent state, but in the real world nobody can expect every road and pavement to be like a billiard table. In fact, even the law does not expect that.
We will report again after John has been interviewed with an update and then we will have to wait and see if he makes the “final cut”!
If you have a question or query about any kind of potential accident claim, give us a call on 0113 366 3022 or contact us on this form for free.
John Ibbotson and Lorraine Brady set up Ibbotson Brady Solicitors in 2001. In recent times the practice incorporated and John became a director whilst Lorraine remained purely as a senior and highly respected solicitor and not as a business owner. At the same time, Katherine Ibbotson came on board.
Katherine joined Ibbotson Brady Solicitors Limited as a Director in September 2013 in a part time and purely strategic role.
Katherine has no responsibilities for any client work, but brings her vast commercial experience to the business planning and direction.
Oxford graduate Katherine qualified as a solicitor in 1994, training at blue chip city firm, Macfarlanes. She then worked for legal giants Eversheds, Addleshaw Booth and Co and then Eversheds again, becoming a partner there. She worked on commercial projects and procurement.
Katherine then worked at the Department of Health Private Finance Unit as a procurement specialist before becoming Head of Legal, NHS England in 2014.
John and Lorraine work in the field of litigation, predominantly working on cases concerning personal injury, clinical negligence and professional negligence, but covering other areas such as freedom of information and data protection too.
As an established and trusted firm, we have strong links with other high quality firms and reciprocal arrangements, so that more or less whatever legal problems or issues you have we can either help you ourselves, or we can recommend someone who we trust to help.
Call us on 0113 3663 022 if you have anything we can help you with.
What can I claim for in an injury claim if I have been hurt?
John here again to answer this question, one that I am often asked.
Put very simply, there are two types of compensation or “damages” that you can claim for if you have been hurt in an accident. The first kind of compensation relates to the pain and suffering caused and the second kind of compensation relates to financial losses suffered as a result of the accident.
Before you can even think about the value of a claim, you actually have to have a good claim in the first place. We have a fault-based legal system. The legal term for fault is liability. Unless somebody is liable for your accident and the injuries and losses caused in it, it’s unlikely that you have a claim. There are some unusual circumstances where you might still have a claim. I would suggest that you simply ring us if you have any questions or any doubts about that.
So, assuming that you have a good claim, how do we value the compensation that you ought to receive for your pain and suffering?
The damages for “pain, suffering and loss of amenity” are usually referred to as General Damages. For these General Damages to be assessed, expert medical evidence has to be obtained as a part of the claim. Put very simply, the more serious the injury or injuries that you have suffered, the higher the value for your general damages is likely to be.
The level of general damages tends to creep up over time, with inflation. However, general damages are not particularly high in this country, in comparison to some other jurisdictions. To give you a couple of examples, as at the date of this blog, you can expect to receive somewhere between £77,000 and £111,000 for the above knee amputation of one leg. For a less serious injury, such as a relatively uncomplicated fracture of the forearm, you could expect to receive somewhere between £4900 and £15,500.
The picture becomes complicated if you make a less than complete recovery. There is also the fact that no two people are the same. some people recover more quickly than others and factors such as age and fitness can come into it. Expert medical opinion is crucial to the valuation of this part of the claim.
The reference to “loss of amenity” relates to the way in which your life might have been affected by the accident and the injury suffered. For instance, you might be a very keen artist or sportsperson and the injuries might stop you from following those pursuits. The law recognises that you have suffered more than just normal pain and suffering. You have also lost the potential to enjoy something that you loved doing as well.
Turning to the financial losses suffered as a result of the accident, these tend to be more straightforward and obvious, but that is not always the case.
The basic principle is that you can claim for those losses and expenses that you’ve incurred solely and exclusively as a result of the accident. The idea is that the compensation ought to put you back in the position as if the accident had never happened. For instance, if you are unable to work for six months and you are not paid for that entire period, then you ought to be able to claim for the exact net loss of earnings suffered throughout plus a little interest for the fact that there was a delay in receiving it.
I always say to my clients that if you are in any doubt as to whether a particular financial loss might or might not be recoverable in your claim, then keep proof of it and tell me about it as soon as possible. I will be able to advise you whether or not is recoverable. It is better to assume that it is recoverable, rather than to lose the chance of ever claiming for it.
Sometimes you can end up with cases where the damages for pain and suffering and for financial losses overlap. For instance, if a professional footballer broke his leg and could never play again, it is likely that he would have a hefty claim for the pain and suffering damages, a further claim for loss of amenity because he can no longer do something he loves and a large loss of earnings claim.
I’m sure that you start to get the picture!
For now, my simple advice is that if you are in any doubt over whether you have a claim for compensation, or whether you can claim for anything in particular, give me or Lorraine a call for free, or click on the case evaluation button below. We would be happy to talk to you and give you the benefit of our advice.
That’s all for now,
John here again,
Good afternoon and welcome to the latest blog.
We’re all really excited here in Leeds about the start of Le Tour tomorrow.
Perhaps it’s a bit of a downer, but I thought I’d write about one of the potential down sides of cycling – accidents.
We’ve had a rash of cycling accident claims here in recent months, mostly for clients in and around Yorkshire and, specifically, around Leeds. I don’t know why there have been so many in a short space of time, but I thought I could share some common themes and tips for bringing claims.
The latest ROSPA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents) figures show the casualty figures have risen in recent years and they suggest that this is mostly because of the increase in popularity of cycling. That makes sense and staging The Tour De France in Yorkshire has definitely had a big impact upon cycling numbers. I’ve got a strong suspicion that there will be a massive increase in the numbers of cyclists on the roads all summer and maybe beyond if there is a “legacy”.
I hope they all stay safe and that organisers and logistical planners have their wellbeing at heart. Roads are gradually changing and at least thinking about cyclists more, but there is a very long way to go.
ROSPA say 80% of cycling injuries are to males and the most vulnerable group age wise is 10 to 15 year olds. Most accidents are in urban areas. Roundabouts are particularly hazardous, which is predictable.
80% of accidents happen in daylight, but then that is because the vast majority of cycling takes place then.
More accidents numerically actually occur in Spring and Summer, but that is because many more miles are cycled in those milder months. This is confirmed by the fact that per mile cycled, the Winter is statistically the most dangerous time.
Injury patterns confirm that limb injuries are very common. Over 40% of hurt cyclists have arm injuries and about 25% have leg injuries.
Chest and abdominal injuries are more rare, at about 5%, but are more often serious and are often sustained with head injuries too. Again, sad, but not surprising.
Head injuries are common with over 40% of injured cyclists suffering them and they are more often serious. Over 70% of cyclist fatalities in London were due in large part to head injuries.
Injured cyclists almost always come off worst when in collision with any other vehicle and the most common cause of accidents involving them is due to one or both of the parties not looking properly. In my experience, it is much more likely to be the other vehicle driver/rider at fault and not the cyclist. This means that cyclists often have strong compensation claims.
Many cyclists now have head cameras to record other drivers’ behaviour and the footage can often be very helpful with a claim. They are a good idea.
Evidence is the key to most claims and that is just as true in cycling claims. Gathering evidence is sometimes hampered by the fact the cyclist has the more serious injuries. It’s hard to gather witness details and evidence if you are injured. Fortunately, when serious accidents occur the public usually respond well and police attend swiftly.
It always makes sense to contact a good Solicitor pretty swiftly after the accident, so that no evidence is lost. Pick someone, like us, who has a lot of experience of such claims and who will speak to you for free and explain how a claim will be pursued. Give us a call or click on the button below.
Don’t pick a claims factory type of organisation. they are unlikely to have local knowledge that can be crucial and you will probably get passed from pillar to post, rather than getting a personal service.
I wish you happy and safe cycling and hope the Tour en Yorkshire goes well!
I will be at Harewood tomorrow watching with excitement.
Good afternoon everyone, John blogging again.
There has been more sad news already this summer about road traffic accidents involving motorbikes, usually serious ones. I have blogged about this sort of accident and this summer phenomenon before. I found this article (below) that I first wrote in August 2011. I’m afraid it all still rings true.
The good weather, light evenings and dry road conditions that summer (we hope) brings all help to entice bikers back out on the roads on their motorcycles. Winding country roads are a particular favourite for bikers who want to enjoy the open road and the real feel-good benefits of challenging biking.
Unfortunately this can all be a deadly combination. As it is, motorcycles make up only 1% of all road traffic, but 10% of all accidents involve motorcyclists [Source: Department of Transport NB – probably a little out of date now bearing in mind the date of my original article, but no doubt still largely true]. Motorcyclists are not only much more likely to be involved in an accident, but they are also much more likely to be very seriously injured in one too; or worse and even killed.
In summer some extra factors cause further or different hazards. Road side verges and crops grow and on winding roads that often means that visibility of the road ahead is poor, or very limited. Speed then becomes a major risk. Some motorcyclists get carried away and simply go too fast or take risks, like cutting corners. Some only go biking in the summer and so are rusty or just plain inexperienced, perhaps with bikes that are a bit too powerful for them. There can also be a slightly reckless degree of peer pressure amongst the brother and sisterhood of some bikers’ groups.
Of course most bikers are sensible and careful riders and, as with other times of the year, the fault for accidents is very often nothing to do with the biker, but to do with other road users driving badly or just not looking for bikers hard enough. Add on to that any issues with road surfaces, particularly with the plague of pot holes we have following some cold and harsh winters, and we are seeing a lot of challenges and risks for bikers to face.
Whatever the cause, these accidents, especially those at high speed on National Speed Limit winding country roads, often have catastrophic consequences, sometimes for all concerned.
Inevitably, I’ve dealt with quite a few injury compensation claims arising out of these accidents and they can be incredibly sad and challenging.
As injury compensation Solicitors based in Leeds, we see a lot of accidents like this on rural West, and especially North Yorkshire Roads. Beautiful areas, but dangerous roads if you are not careful.
As bikers and drivers all we can do is be sensible, drive and ride diligently and bear in mind the seasonal hazards like reduced lines of sight due to crops and verges.
If you have had an accident, of any kind, give us a call or click the button below.
More soon, John
John here again.
We seem to be receiving more enquiries from clients who have been unhappy with how Solicitors have advised them. I thought I would put together a quick guide on some of the issues affecting anyone contemplating a claim against their former Solicitors where they think they got things wrong and caused them losses.
This, with the help of many sources, is what I came up with.
Claims against negligent Solicitors
Individuals (and businesses) often rely on the advice of Solicitors. Solicitors usually get things right, but sometimes there can be a loss suffered, or another unwelcome consequence, where they got it wrong. In these circumstances what rights do you have?
Are you entitled to bring a claim against the Solicitor?
You must be able to show you were owed a “duty of care” by the Solicitor. In most cases this will be obvious, because you engaged the Solicitor to advise you or to act on your behalf.
You must be able to show that a loss has actually been suffered and that the loss was caused by the breach of duty of care and not by other factors.
You must still be in time to bring a claim. Time limits have been laid down in law for different types of claims. In most professional negligence cases, the time limit is six years from the date of the negligence but sometimes, when the negligence has not come to light until later, this time limit may be extended. If a claim is brought too late the defendant will have a strong defence.
Has the Solicitor been negligent?
To succeed in a claim, you must establish a breach of professional duty by proving that the professional’s conduct fell below the standard of a reasonably competent professional in the same area of expertise and that this breach caused you loss.
In order to find this out, the facts must be looked at and considered in light of the law which has developed from court decisions.
There is a body of law governing the amount of recoverable loss. In general, there will only be compensation for those losses which could have been reasonably foreseen at the time of the advice by the Solicitor. This is often complicated.
As well as a negligence claim, you may also have other claims, such as a breach of contract.
Even if the Solicitor has been negligent, your claim’s value might be reduced if, by your own negligence, you contributed to your loss.
Your compensation award might also be reduced if you did not take reasonable steps to limit the loss suffered.
Factors to consider before claiming
In most cases, unless a claim settles quickly, pursuing it can be costly and, even if you win at court, you will not usually recover all of the costs you have spent on the case.
You should check your insurance. Some house or motor insurance policies provide legal expenses cover. You should also discuss fee arrangements with the firm of Solicitors you want to use in the claim.
Steps to be taken before to court proceedings
It is often worthwhile putting your grievance to the Solicitor directly before involving fresh Solicitors, in case the matter can be resolved between yourselves. The must have a formal complaints policy. Ask for it and follow it.
Another possible approach is to contact the Solicitor’s regulatory body. Your former Solicitors must signpost you to the regulator and complaints body if you ask them to.
If these steps do not resolve your claim, the best option is to use a firm of Solicitors with a speciality in professional negligence.
If those specialist Solicitors advise that you have a good claim worth pursuing, the court rules give a procedure, the Professional Negligence Pre-Action Protocol, to be followed before court proceedings. This procedure is intended to encourage the early exchange of information and attempts to settle the case without the need for court proceedings.
The first step is to send the defendant Solicitor a ‘Preliminary Notice’ setting out brief details of the grievance, then followed by a detailed ‘Letter of Claim’ with copies of any supporting documents.
The Pre-Action Protocol lays out a timetable for a response by the defendant.
It can be extremely beneficial and tactically astute to make offers to settle. The court will look at these at the end of the case, when it comes to considering the reasonableness of the parties’ behaviour and whether to penalise them in costs. These offers are called ‘Part 36 Offers’.
Throughout the claim the parties should consider alternative ways of resolving the dispute such as mediation, or simple round table meetings.
If at any stage the claim is about to expire due to time limits, steps must be taken to preserve the claim either by issuing proceedings and then agreeing with the defendant to freeze the case so that work can still be undertaken, or by entering an agreement with the defendant to bring time to a standstill, preventing them from subsequently raising time limits as a defence to any claim.
If settlement isn’t reached after the Pre-Action Protocol steps, then as a last resort, court proceedings can be considered.
The Solicitors you use should advise you on the likely costs consequences and timeframe of taking a case through court proceedings. Some of these elements may be uncertain as they, to an extent, depend upon the actions of the defendant and the court. Even after starting court proceedings, it can often take well over a year for a case to get to a trial.
In most cases, settlement is reached before the court case is concluded. Early settlement will mean less cost, time and upset to the parties and enable them to move on.
As you will appreciate, this information is for general knowledge only. Specific advice should be sought for individual cases. If you think you have a circumstance that you would like to discuss, give me a call or click the button below.
That’s all for now,
Morning all, John here again.
I am shamelessly paraphrasing an old article I wrote about what you can do if your solicitors mess up your compensation claim or do a very poor job with a poor outcome. This is because I have now been contacted by quite a few unlucky people in just this situation. If that is you – read on…..
Our average day’s work here at Ibbotson Brady Solicitors involves us acting as expert personal injury solicitors helping people who have suffered injuries and accidents and want to claim damages or compensation. Sadly, we are also sometimes contacted by new clients who come to us because they already had a good personal injury compensation claim up and running, but their existing/old solicitors made a mistake and so the claim has failed (or is failing), or it has ended up being worth much less than it should have been.
I’m not talking about cases where the solicitors had a good go, but the claim wasn’t strong enough. I’m talking about messing up strong claims.
These are sad cases because the poor client has been doubly hurt; they suffered the injuries in the accident in first place and then they suffered loss again when the solicitor who they instructed and trusted got it wrong.
In many, in fact most, of these cases there is no second chance to bring the original compensation claim against the person or company who caused the accident – in fact those opponents have often had a very lucky “windfall” escape. This can mean that the only real option available for the poor client is the pretty daunting one of bringing a professional negligence claim against their own former solicitors.
Of course, just because a claim has failed or someone is unhappy with the outcome doesn’t necessarily mean that the solicitors have been negligent, or done anything wrong at all. There are naturally strong claims, weak claims and those that are on a knife edge. The outcome of the original case is not always the dictating factor in whether there is a strong professional negligence claim and negligence claims are sometimes hard to win.
Some common themes I have seen with genuinely strong professional negligence claims against solicitors include chaotic and disorganised law firms, or situations where perhaps the solicitor or “file handler” is either very junior and out of their depth, or else the identity of the person dealing with it constantly changes all of the time, so that you barely talk to the same person twice. These are sometimes referred to as factory firms who probably bought in a lot of work, perhaps through television advertising, but were never really up to the job. The personal service needed is often entirely lacking and so important things are missed. Put simply, your solicitor ought to be talking to you, writing to you, keeping you updated, going through medical reports with you etc.
We find also that situations arise where the solicitor simply doesn’t explain things properly, or at least in simple terms that can be understood. Sometimes clients feel pushed into taking steps without really having the chance to consider and understand them properly or agree anything. Sometimes this takes the form of the solicitor sending out too much bland, standard written explanation without any actual specific case related advice in it. There is a feeling that they have just pressed a button and a document has churned out that is vaguely relevant, but doesn’t really equal advice. That is very disappointing when a 20 minute face to face meeting or telephone call with the same client would make things much, much clearer.
It doesn’t automatically follow that these specific and worrying themes lead to negligence either , but they do seem to be common indicators of problems to come.
One small crumb of comfort for disappointed clients in cases like these is that solicitors must have, as a condition of being able to call themselves solicitors, professional indemnity negligence insurance. This compulsory insurance is comprehensive so that the client is protected and to maintain public confidence in solicitors.
If something bad like this has happened to you and your claim it can be gut wrenching and it often feels like you are starting again at square one.
A few of these professional negligence claims against solicitors can be fairly simple and straightforward, such as where there has been a very basic and obvious mistake, like missing a crucial time limit. Most others are much more complicated and subtle and solicitors with their insurers can be tough opponents.
There is a written Protocol that has to be followed for these claims and it is even more important than ever that you go to a solicitor who knows what they are doing second time around!
So, if you think you might have one of these problems/situations then give me a call or send me an email for free. You can also use the case evaluation button below to make a free enquiry and we’ll call you and have a free chat. No win, no fee and other funding options might well be available.
Have a great weekend,