Solicitors, being commercial entities,
will, after initial investigations, only take cases they deem to have high
success rates. When Legal Aid was
available, solicitors sometimes tended to steer clients away from this
facility, inferring that the procedures involved may not be beneficial to
clients. It is, however, strongly suspected
solicitors don’t want interference of the Legal Aid Board.
Solicitors can only take these cases to
a certain level, then they employ the services of an advocate. Presently, solicitors have no control over
advocates and can’t be held responsible to the client, for advocates actions or
inactions.
One of the main conflicts arising from
no win – no fee, is that the legal team will always take the easy option to
secure a “win”. This SECURES THEIR
FEES. There can be a significant
difference between a “win” and the expectant results of the fee paying
client. In my case, the large company,
whose negligence caused my considerable injuries, were not sued, but my former
employer, a small firm – the easy option – was.
His contribution to my accident was minimal. It is common knowledge how easy it is to sue
an employer.
Again, under the present system, it is
not incumbent upon solicitors to explain in detail, at the initial stages, the
full implications of raising such an action.
Examples include, involvement of C.R.U. also estimating the possible
value of the claim. Apparently,
advocates also escape this vitally important element of quantifying a
claim. Also, neither is it incumbent on
solicitors to advise clients of potential pitfall in raising an action eg: The
possibility of defender placing a TENDER, which prevents any further
opportunity of negotiating a settlement out of court.
There is something radically wrong with
a system which allows a legal team to refuse a client representation in court
whilst still claiming their full fees, especially when such an incident takes
place inside a court building, sheriff waiting to go to proof.
COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE
- Law Society of Scotland only have
very restricted powers and can’t act if THEY consider solicitor acted
within present framework, albeit on the fringes.
- Advocates are supposed to be self
regulating. Recent events
vindicated my choice not raise a complaint in this quarter.
One of the main
components in assessing the value of a claim is the present earnings of
the claimant. If this factor became
widely known, I suspect there would be a public outcry for higher
wages/salaries particularly from people on low incomes and employed in
potentially dangerous jobs e.g. anyone working with any type of machinery or
working in a rough environment. This
situation would be particularly of interest to the middle aged, since age is
also a prime contributory factor in evaluating a claim.
Solicitors, being commercial entities, will, after initial investigations, only take cases they deem to have high success rates. When Legal Aid was available, solicitors sometimes tended to steer clients away from this facility, inferring that the procedures involved may not be beneficial to clients. It is, however, strongly suspected solicitors don’t want interference of the Legal Aid Board.
Solicitors can only take these cases to a certain level, then they employ the services of an advocate. Presently, solicitors have no control over advocates and can’t be held responsible to the client, for advocates actions or inactions.
One of the main conflicts arising from no win – no fee, is that the legal team will always take the easy option to secure a “win”. This SECURES THEIR FEES. There can be a significant difference between a “win” and the expectant results of the fee paying client. In my case, the large company, whose negligence caused my considerable injuries, were not sued, but my former employer, a small firm – the easy option – was. His contribution to my accident was minimal. It is common knowledge how easy it is to sue an employer.
Again, under the present system, it is not incumbent upon solicitors to explain in detail, at the initial stages, the full implications of raising such an action. Examples include, involvement of C.R.U. also estimating the possible value of the claim. Apparently, advocates also escape this vitally important element of quantifying a claim. Also, neither is it incumbent on solicitors to advise clients of potential pitfall in raising an action eg: The possibility of defender placing a TENDER, which prevents any further opportunity of negotiating a settlement out of court.
There is something radically wrong with a system which allows a legal team to refuse a client representation in court whilst still claiming their full fees, especially when such an incident takes place inside a court building, sheriff waiting to go to proof.
COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE
1. Law Society of Scotland only have very restricted powers and can’t act if THEY consider solicitor acted within present framework, albeit on the fringes.
2. Advocates are supposed to be self regulating. Recent events vindicated my choice not raise a complaint in this quarter.
One of the main components in assessing the value of a claim is the present earnings of the claimant. If this factor became widely known, I suspect there would be a public outcry for higher wages/salaries particularly from people on low incomes and employed in potentially dangerous jobs e.g. anyone working with any type of machinery or working in a rough environment. This situation would be particularly of interest to the middle aged, since age is also a prime contributory factor in evaluating a claim.