Posted by admin | Posted in General | Posted on 30-05-2010
Tags: Best Route, Claimants, Computer Engineer, Conditional Fee Agreement, Facebook, Family Solicitor, Figureheads, Generalisation, Good Faith, Hand Over Fist, Intel Celeron Processor, Legal Matters, Little Understanding, Manual Labour, Personal Injury Compensation, Petty Criminals, Scapegoats, Tabloid Newspapers, Whipping Boy, Work Injuries
Another day, another defence of ‘no win no fee’ from me.
This time the (admittedly quite entertaining) article that has jumped on the bandwagon comes from blogger Lee Boyce on ThisisMoney.com and is entitled, ‘The Harassment of No Win No Fee Lawyers.’
Like pretty much everything a government generates in good faith, the doctrine of ‘no win no fee’ is a whipping boy for every commentator who claims that it has engendered scores of malpracticing lawyers and seedy companies.
As I have said before, and will continue to argue, it is the fraudulent claimants and the petty criminals trying to milk the system that should be the scapegoats, the figureheads of dislike and distrust and not the system itself, which though undoubtedly flawed, is still the best route to justice for many claimants.
I had a discussion this morning with a colleague, in which we considered that no win no fee (or the Conditional Fee Agreement, to give it its proper title) has a similar reputation to tabloid newspapers: right-wing types look down their noses at it and anyone who uses it as objects of pity, since they themselves can afford to hand out legal fees hand over fist to the family solicitor if needs be.
Let’s consider a few facts: the vast majority of people who use no win no fee lawyers to arrange personal injury compensation do so because they are both ignorant of, or naive regarding, the precise processes of the law surrounding their claim.
To mock them is like a computer engineer scoffing at someone, who only uses their PC to go on Facebook, because they don’t know exactly how their Intel Celeron processor works. They don’t need to! There needs to be provision in, and access to, the law for people with little understanding or prior interest in legal matters.
The second point is, to make a sweeping generalisation, that people who suffer the most severe work injuries are more likely to earn a lower income: ie if their job involves manual labour or working with heavy machinery.
If they’re injured severely enough that they’re in any degree of lasting pain, or even worse, can’t work, they’re not just going to sit there and accept their lot while the red bills pile up on the doormat. They’re going to be lured by the phrase ‘no win no fee lawyer’ when they look in the Yellow Pages, rather than by somebody who they’re not quite sure whether they’re going to end up paying hefty fees to at the end of their case.
Boyce’s article attacks the forms of advertising through which some no win no fee lawyers contact members of the public, such as via email marketing. Why wouldn’t they? They provide a service like every other firm or organisation that does the same thing. Would he be complaining if a company offering him a discount on his next holiday got in touch the same way?
Personal injury lawyers and claims management companies are legally forbidden from cold calling members of the public or harassing them in any way, under Ministry of Justice Guidelines, which contravenes what the article says.
Boyce also shares his loathing for the TV adverts for no win no fee lawyers and claims companies. If he hates them so much, he doesn’t have to watch them! A remote control button is not a difficult device to operate.
He also says, “I have never had an accident or claimed compensation in my life, which I guess is a lucky thing.”
Good. Nobody would wish injury on anybody, but it stands to reason that he wouldn’t be interested in an advert for a product which he has no need for. If I don’t own a dishwasher I am unlikely to be thrilled by adverts for Finish anti-limescale tablets (although I probably wouldn’t find them that interesting anyway, let’s be honest).
These adverts are for people who have been hurt severely enough to warrant a genuine claim. If the claim is fraudulent, fabricated, or exaggerated, it won’t hold water. And it would be interesting to see how quickly the naysayers’ attitude would change if they suddenly found themselves the innocent victim of a horrific car accident.