E.Rex.Makin: 2011

Friday, 18 November 2011

Richard Edwards on Jack Straw's Private Members Bill:

Although he declined to act when asked to as Justice Secretary in January 2008 I welcomed Jack Straw’s late intervention in the referral fee debate. His proposals to halve the fixed fee for portal claims and introduce a requirement for objective evidence in whiplash claims are, however, ill conceived.

In March the Transport Committee reported that over 40% of personal injury lawyers pay referral fees, the majority, one therefore assumes, do not. The overheads of the majority will therefore be unaffected by the ban and Mr Straw declines to explain why their costs should be arbitrarily slashed.

The current fixed fee for a low value claim was introduced following industry wide consultation and as the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers have highlighted it did not factor in the cost of a referral fee. The notion that a further reduction should be imposed without any consultation is unrealistic although insurers thrown into panic by the loss of referral income are of course screaming for it.

To introduce a requirement for objective evidence in whiplash claims will result in people with genuine injuries being denied compensation. The state of medical science is not yet sufficiently advanced to be able to detect clinical signs for all injuries, although it is accepted by respectable practitioners that genuine neck injuries can be suffered yet not be detectable upon examination. The Courts can do no more than asses the medical evidence and credibility of the claimant who bears the burden of proof. The Judiciary can be trusted to scrutinse and weigh the evidence even if Jack Straw thinks otherwise.

Although right on referral fees, and I agree with his proposals to criminalise the practice, Mr Straw is wrong otherwise and he should quit while he is ahead.

Friday, 16 September 2011

Hill v Master Concrete

Liverpool Solicitors, E Rex Makin & Co acted for the Claimant in the matter of Barbara Hill –v- Master Concrete Northern Limited EWHC 3613 (Qb). Mrs Hill was crossing Regina Road close to the junction of Walton Vale on the 20^th November 2007 and collided with the Defendant’s cement mixer resulting in severe injuries, the most serious of which was an above knee amputation of the left leg. At the trial in the High Court in December 2010 His Honour Judge Gore Q.C. found in favour of the Claimant subject to a 50% reduction for contributory negligence.

Permission to appeal was granted by the Court of Appeal although the case has now settled with the Claimant receiving substantial damages.

Richard Edwards who acted for the Claimant said “This was a very pleasing outcome for Mrs Hill who transferred to us from other solicitors. The litigation was hotly contested by the opponents and despite the obstacles thrown in her way Mrs Hill showed tremendous dignity and resilience throughout”.

Tuesday, 19 July 2011

Richard Edwards responds to Jack Straw's comments about referral fees in the The Times

Richard Edwards on Referral Fee Consultation

In an early bid for damp squib of the decade the Legal Services Board (LSB) has recently announced its decision following a lengthy consultation on the payment of referral fees by the legal profession. For those unfamiliar these are payments made by solicitors to bodies who refer work to them, some call them backhanders and until 2004 they were banned. Since the ban was lifted referral fees have proliferated along with claims management companies (CMC’s) who trade in claims. All readers will no doubt have been bombarded by texts or stopped in the street by representatives of CMC’s asking if they have been involved in an accident. A CMC will sell a claim for anything ranging from £500.00 to £1,000.00, sometimes more.

Despite the Law Society, Bar Council, Lord Justice Jackson, the Transport Select Committee of MP’s and many others urging an outright ban the LSB has suggested only that there be greater transparency so that ‘consumers’ (or clients as I prefer) know when a referral fee is being paid. The LSB has missed an opportunity to once and for all see off this nefarious practice, and instead passed the buck back to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority.

I have previously argued that the payment of referral fees has undermined the status of lawyers in general and has helped encourage the rise in fraudulent claims. As such the trade damages public confidence in the civil justice system which stands as a cornerstone of a civilised society. Arguments in favour of referral fees include that they can help improve access to justice. This important function however could be performed by subsidised public education programmes driven perhaps by the Law Society in conjunction with the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, organisations that can be trusted not to harm the profession in the way that referral fees do.

Apparently the Law Society intends to write to Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke asking him to look again at the issue, on recent form, however, one fears the odds of him getting this right are not good.

Wednesday, 20 April 2011

Richard Edwards on the Risks of Going with Insurance 'Appointed' Solicitors

I read with interest recently an article in the April edition of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyer's (APIL) PI Focus Magazine by Martin Docherty, a chartered physiotherapist and expert witness. Mr Doherty said personal injury victims who are referred for physiotherapy directly by their solicitors invariably receive better rehabilitation than those who are referred by, or on behalf of, an insurer. He says this is because insurers use rehabilitation management companies that are motivated by profit and whose focus is obtaining the lowest cost rather than on the best therapy for the victim. Also there can be lengthy delays when awaiting authority from the insurer to extend the therapy beyond the course approved initially.

Mr Docherty concludes his article by saying:-

“Claimants who are referred by their solicitors to trusted providers almost always experience better quality of care. The rehabilitation management companies are run as businesses with profits seemingly trumping the quality of care offered to the Claimant. Sadly, many Claimants are unaware of the process following their accident and assume that they have to go with a firm of solicitors instructed by their insurance company rather than being able to appoint a local solicitor of their own. In my experience the panel firms used by insurance companies particularly favour the use of rehabilitation management companies and the resulting poor level of service.”

Here Mr Docherty touches on an issue that most would benefit from knowing a little more about. Accident victims need to be aware of their right to instruct a solicitor of their choosing and that such advice will be available free of charge. Choosing to go with the insurer’s solicitor will not be cheaper. What it means very frequently is that they will lose the opportunity of a face to face meeting with their solicitor, the claim is likely to be dealt with by a call centre outfit located anywhere in the country and it is often the case that the firms used by insurance companies have major Defendant practices.

There is one example of a well established Defendant firm in Liverpool that traditionally only acted for insurance companies in the personal injury field. This firm, that will remain nameless, has set up a Claimant branch under a different name and is understood to be fed work solely by insurance companies.

In my opinion accident victims are better served by going to Claimant lawyers who are passionate about fighting for their rights and protecting their interests. Many of the firms that are fed Claimant work by the insurers are also members of the Forum Of Insurance Lawyers, an organisation that has embraced recent government proposals that will see accident victims having to make a contribution towards their own legal fees from their damages and which lobbies against their interests. I don’t say there is anything improper about this set up I only wonder how accident victims would feel if they knew their lawyer ran with the hare and hunted with the hounds.

My advice to any accident victim is to instruct a firm of solicitors such as ours that is accredited by the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, a not for profit organisation that is dedicated to fighting for the rights of injured people.

Richard Edwards, solicitor and head of our Personal Injury Department:-

Friday, 25 February 2011

Rex Makin: Will council’s stance on Big Society revive Militant view of city

“IT’S not what you do, it’s the way that you do it, that’s what gets results”.

If I remember correctly they are the words of an old song originally sung by that excellent chanteuse Ella Fitzgerald.

They apply to the conduct of Liverpool City Council in jumping in head first against the Big Society.

This obtained super national publicity and threw back the taunt that we were back in the days of Militant.

Rex Makin: Time to put a stop to claims farmers by banning referral fees

LAST week I referred to the mobile telephone call asking had I had a bump.

This was probably from what is known as a claims farmer, an industry which has grown up in recent years now that advertising and referral fees are allowed on the part of solicitors and which has helped to create the impression of a compensation culture.

Rex Makin: Shame on yobs who give the Royal hospital a bad name

THE A & E Department of the Royal Hospital, as well I know having been a customer there, is a wonderful outfit and yet it is being invaded by thugs, yobs and scallywags causing havoc and upsetting and impairing the service it gives to those who need urgent attention.

It is a positive disgrace and a state of affairs exists which affects the service that citizens get, and are entitled to get, from this unit.ŠSteps have to be taken to prevent these invasions which are outrageous.
Shame on those hooligans who cause this present disastrous situation.