The idea at that time was that the arrangements would act as a replacement to legal aid, which was no longer available for personal injury claims, so that people who couldn’t afford a lawyer but who had a good case would still be able to pursue their case.

The success fee (the uplift that the lawyer charges) was to be calculated to compensate for the cases the lawyer took on but would lose.  This means that the cases which were won covered the costs of the ones which lost. In effect, it covered the risk the lawyer was taking in not getting paid along the way and the potential of not getting paid at all if the case did not win.

That was how it was meant to work.  Then came along referral fees, costs caps, fixed costs, insurers selling details of people who have had an accident, and the major advertising by claims management companies, which completely changed the landscape.

Instead of only people who would have qualified for legal aid being offered “no win, no fees” arrangements, now everyone expects to be given one irrespective of their means.

So that is the background.

One of the more controversial aspects has been referral fees.  When the “no win, no fees” arrangements first came in, solicitors were banned from paying or accepting referral fees by our professional rules.  This changed a few years in and that, in my opinion, is when it really started to go wrong.

I recently read an article, I can’t remember where so I can’t link it here, that said the solicitor receives fixed costs of £1,500 for personal injury claims up to £15,000, of which on average £400 is paid by the solicitor back to the referrer (the claim management company, insurer, etc).

As a business model, to me this seems completely bonkers.  The only one carrying the risk of the claim is the solicitor and to add insult to injury they then have to give more than 25% of their fees away.

I am extremely glad that they are moving to ban referral fees in the personal injury market http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14846666.  I would be even more happy if they abolished “no win, no fees” altogether and allowed us to enter into arrangements where we can take a % of the winnings instead.

The settlement agreement was done by way of a Tomlin Order, which means that the mechanics of the settlement (who pays what to whom and when) remains secret and the only part which is on the public record is that the claim is suspended provided the settlement is honoured.

The party who is receiving money in settlement can say that the case was settled in their favour, but cannot give any more details except for being able to tell if certain people are part of the settlement agreement itself.

In this particular case, the defendant was extremely concerned that the settlement terms remained private, save that there was an agreed joint statement about the case which my client could show to certain people but not to others. It was absolutely forbidden that the joint statement be published in the
press or other media because the defendant was concerned about the potential harm to business reputation.  We reluctantly agreed.

The settlement required that the defendant pay a sum of money by instalments payable by certain dates.  If any instalment was missed or late, we would be entitled to get Judgment for the remaining balance of the settlement sum.

As the defendant was so anxious to keep the settlement secret, I thought it a sure bet that the instalments would be paid on time.  Judgments are a public record, so my client would be able to tell all and sundry that we had Judgment against the defendant which would indicate that my client had “won” the case, and by inference that the defendant was “guilty” of the illegal conduct alleged.  Exactly what the defendant was seeking to avoid by having the stringent do’s  and don’t in the settlement agreement.

How wrong I was!  Time for the first payment has come and gone so as soon as the Court actions my Request for Judgment my client can (if
so inclined) publish it in the press and elsewhere.

What I really don’t understand is why the defendant made us spend 2 hours working out settlement terms when the benefit of the secrecy has been undone by the defendant’s failure to pay on time.  Nowt so strange as folk, I guess.  I will keep you posted how this pans out.

I was in Birmingham on Monday and left about 30 minutes before the rioting and looting kicked off.  I can only imagine the fear and chaos which would have been felt by the bystanders.

I was also on facebook as events were unfolding and the rumours circulating about where things were supposed to be happening were fantastical.  My daughter even texted me to say that she had heard there was looting in our local Asda.  There wasn’t, of course, but you can see how it is quick and easy for those intent on disorder to mobilise themselves.

But for me what I take from this week is the positive message that the majority of people in the country feel abhorrence and disgust at the behaviour of the minority of troublemakers.  People coming together to protest against the lawlessness by participating in community clearing up, by putting names to the faces published by the police, and by being vocal in their views calling for calm to be restored.

What makes this country the place it is are the people and it is very clear that the majority of people are decent, law abiding, community minded individuals despite everything.

Now this will not sound exciting to you unless you also run a solicitors’ practice but, believe me, it is a real weight off.

Unlike all other businesses which need to have PII, solicitors’ practices have one annual renewal date (1^st October) by which they have to have the insurance in place each year.

So no matter when you started your solicitors’ practice, there is this annual renewal when everyone has to renew by.

This means that the PII insurers know how much of the pie they are going to get because everyone applies at the same time.

This has caused problems for the past few years because the insurers could literally leave it to the last minute to confirm terms knowing that there would be little chance for practices to shop around if the premium was high.

There is a proposal on the table at the Solicitors Regulation Authority that this annual renewal date be abolished, but the earliest it would be changed (if it is decided to change it) is 2014.

But my insurer this year decided it would offer early renewal terms to existing policyholders.  If evidence were needed that the profession hates this annual renewal date malarkey then the fact that the insurer was overwhelmed with responses should spell it out loud and clear.

But my pro-action doesn’t stop there!  I have also

• set up a new company with a view to being able to deliver legal services in a more progressive way when the legal services market is “deregulated” in October (not that there seems to be any benefit at the moment because the PII insurers want to still insure it as a solicitors’ practice and don’t seem to understand the difference, but I shall persevere).
•  decided on a new trading style 
• bought a new domain name 
• sent out follow up emails to other local solicitors for our collective 
• cleared my desk of cr*p

 I don’t know what has come over me, I am usually so much more lazy.  Wonder what vanguard action next week will bring??

Unlike the recent spate of cases, this time he’s not asking for an injunction (super or otherwise) but for damages for breach of privacy.

My previous blog posts explain what the super injunctions were all about so I will not repeat it here.

In this case, it seems Rio Ferdinand was not given enough notice that the story was going to be published to allow him to get an injunction so his recourse is for damages – that is if it can be shown that the newspaper’s defence of public interest does not outweigh his right to privacy.

There is no doubt his privacy has been breached.  A relationship with a teenhood girlfriend which lasted into adulthood but petered out to a few texts/email and then no contact at all appears to have been “sexed up” to make it seem like it was a current fling.

According to The Guardian, they had not met in person for six years

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/05/rio-ferdinand-sunday-mirror-article

and according to the BBC the last contact they did have was by text in February 2010 when Rio had just taken over as Englandcaptain from John Terry due to troubles in his personal life http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14033651.

It would seem that the woman in question, Carly Storey, approached the publicist Max Clifford shortly after the last text exchange between them and he arranged for her to sell her story to the Mirror Group Newpapers for £16,000.

I didn’t read the original story and can’t find a copy on the net now, presumably because it has been pulled in light of the legal action.  However, if they have not met in person for six years (which is about the time he decided to settle down with his now wife because she was expecting their first child), and relations between Rio and Carly Storey had been cooling for some time prior, it is hard to see how this is a story which could be in the public interest.

It would seem to me to be a case of someone jumping on the band wagon to make a few bucks and the newspaper was chancing its arm.

I agree withRio– there has to be a line for everyone between what is private and what the public have the right to know.  Just because the public may be interested in the private life of people does not necessarily make it in the public interest under the law.

The Court is the impartial arbiter on these issues and we should know later this week whether a “kiss and tell” from an old flame is a proper thing for a newspaper to be publishing.

Personally I hope not, otherwise imagine all those skeletons which could be popping up all over the place – we all have them, I am sure.

However, when the contract finished the company made no effort to pay the bonuses and I was forced (after several calls and emails to try and sort it out myself) to turn to JH Law for help.

I have to admit that Marie was incredibly understanding and helpful from the outset. She advised me on what the options were and how best to tackle the situation to get a speedy and successful result.

In a matter of weeks the company paid up and it’s directly down to the intervention of Marie at JH Law.

So if you’re looking for legal advice or a Solicitor in Rugby/Warwickshire then JH Law should be your first call, they are brilliant.

Karl Craig-West
Midlands Advice and Training Services Ltd

Marie Claire dealt with it very calmly and professionally and although we ended up parting company with the customer (because we wanted to) the debt was cleared. So I have no hesitation in recommending JH Law.”

Robin Richter
Chairman – Rugby First

Ted Jagger,
owner, Just Wire Production

How then do you choose a solicitor? How do you open up to them and describe what has occurred when you already feel vulnerable?

I contacted JH Law where I found reassurance, sensitivity and a clear objective opinion on the strength of the position and the best way to proceed or not. It was the best decision I could have made.

I found the labyrinth of the law became painless, with the principal solicitor unravelling the jargon and procedures so allowing me to remain in control and choose the way forward.

There were no hidden costs or unnecessary escalating fees as every possible step has been made to bring the situation to a swift and satisfactory conclusion.

Marie-Claire has made every effort to steer me in right direction and support me through all the frustrations of a High Court case. Her extensive network of legal professionals, access to barristers, and recognition within the business community makes her the ideal choice. I found her to be calm and friendly and a very good listener, which enabled her to pick up on issues I considered insignificant which actually strengthen the case.

Don’t give it a second thought. I cannot praise her enough, it will be the best decision you make to resolve the situation you are in.

Tina Thornton
Director
Perfect Timing 4 U Ltd

From our very first meeting with Marie-Claire from JH Law we found her to be very approachable, professional, helpful, informative to name but a few and throughout the entire process she advised and guided us, we never felt like ours was just another case she had to deal with. She was very patient in explaining all the processes that we would have to go though and the difficulties we would face. I cannot recommend her more highly and any future clients would be very lucky to have her “fighting their corner”. This matter was resolved after a lot of work and effort by Marie-Claire and we settled out of court with our customer, without Marie-Claire this would never have happened and we will always be very grateful for all she has done.

Mark Thomas
Carrick Construction
Rugby