Proud to be a lawyer ???
Discussion
Excuse the daily wail link
MailOnline: No win no fee law firm claims £58,000 legal costs from the NHS after winning £2,500 compensation for patient was burnt by a hot drink
http://dailym.ai/PBYPpu
Maybe this should be in the public/private sector thread for 51turbo
I am sick to foooking death of CENTURY FM 'S advertising, "stubbed your toe" call us to sue, "had an accident at work" sue your boss "they don't pay the insurance does" until they can't afford the premium next year and your out of a job feck wits,
The allowing of parasite law firms and fee introducers or whatever they are called to advertise must be amongst the biggest fook ups ever,
Anyway I suppose if I want 2k or an ipad etc up front I best stop fooking about on here and ring "injury lawyers 4 u"
The lawyers will be on shortly to defend this and legal aid
MailOnline: No win no fee law firm claims £58,000 legal costs from the NHS after winning £2,500 compensation for patient was burnt by a hot drink
http://dailym.ai/PBYPpu
Maybe this should be in the public/private sector thread for 51turbo
I am sick to foooking death of CENTURY FM 'S advertising, "stubbed your toe" call us to sue, "had an accident at work" sue your boss "they don't pay the insurance does" until they can't afford the premium next year and your out of a job feck wits,
The allowing of parasite law firms and fee introducers or whatever they are called to advertise must be amongst the biggest fook ups ever,
Anyway I suppose if I want 2k or an ipad etc up front I best stop fooking about on here and ring "injury lawyers 4 u"
The lawyers will be on shortly to defend this and legal aid
Responding to the OP (although this has the look of the usual knock down ginger type of thread - mouth off, then run away):-
(1) Please do some basic research, the costs awarded were 5K, as noted above.
(2) Ambulance chasing is deplorable. If I was Head of Stuff, I would not allow lawyers to advertise and would ban CFAs. I would also bring back old style means and merits tested legal aid.
(3) I don't go in for pride about anything, as pride is not a virtue, but I am not ashamed of what I do for a living. I do my job to get paid and claim no lofty vocation, but in my career I have worked on law-changing cases that have improved fairness in employment and public administration, helped to defend free speech against Government and corporate control, represented poor and inarticulate people against bullying companies and public sector bodies, defended the Government/taxpayer against chancer claims by scuzzbags domestic and foreign, help to save a few businesses that employ people from insolvency, helped to track down and recover money defrauded from businesses that employ people and need that money to stay in business, taught some young people how to do similar stuff, and paid enough tax to pay many nurses and teachers over several years.
For most of my work I have (gasp!) been paid, either very well, or reasonably well. I have done a small portion of it for free, because I wanted to. Tell us about what you have done, OP.
(1) Please do some basic research, the costs awarded were 5K, as noted above.
(2) Ambulance chasing is deplorable. If I was Head of Stuff, I would not allow lawyers to advertise and would ban CFAs. I would also bring back old style means and merits tested legal aid.
(3) I don't go in for pride about anything, as pride is not a virtue, but I am not ashamed of what I do for a living. I do my job to get paid and claim no lofty vocation, but in my career I have worked on law-changing cases that have improved fairness in employment and public administration, helped to defend free speech against Government and corporate control, represented poor and inarticulate people against bullying companies and public sector bodies, defended the Government/taxpayer against chancer claims by scuzzbags domestic and foreign, help to save a few businesses that employ people from insolvency, helped to track down and recover money defrauded from businesses that employ people and need that money to stay in business, taught some young people how to do similar stuff, and paid enough tax to pay many nurses and teachers over several years.
For most of my work I have (gasp!) been paid, either very well, or reasonably well. I have done a small portion of it for free, because I wanted to. Tell us about what you have done, OP.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 7th April 10:54
10 Pence Short said:
carinaman said:
Can we give the Daily Mail bashing a bit of a break? If it gets anymore enthusiastic it risks falling off of the bed and hitting the bedside cabinet en route to the shagpile.
We shouldn't. They are responsible for promoting ignorance and hate.
I am all for freedom of speech however I do question the motives and morals of people who so brazenly misrepresent or sensationalise everyday events to the extent they do.
iloveboost said:
....
It seems like an un-intended consequence of making it easier and cheaper to sue people generally?
It is in fact harder and more expensive to sue people than it used to be. One distorting factor, however, is the reckless decision by this Government to allow contingency fees (like CFAs, only worse). For a Conservative government, this one seems very keen on changing things which traditionally worked OK (ish), and replacing them with new, un-needed things which, er, sort of damage the fabric of Britishness (now I sound like that git Farage and need to go and lie down).It seems like an un-intended consequence of making it easier and cheaper to sue people generally?
The essence of the Daily Mail mentality, as exemplified by the opening post, and some other posts on this thread, appears to be to take one story and from that story conclude that an entire system is fundamentally broken. The subject can be police, prisons, hospitals, schools, courts, you name it. The why oh why ists read these stories, and confidently assert that all of these systems are run entirely by the corrupt and/or the incompetent. You can point out to them as much as you like that the story shows things going wrong, or indeed that the story has been misreported, and that reality is nuanced and complicated and not cartoonish and simple, but you will be wasting your effort. The why oh why ists want to believe that everything is broken. It seems to comfort them in some way.
They seem also to think that complex societal problems have incredibly simple solutions that can be arrived at by a couple of sensible good chaps in the pub that no one has ever thought of before. It must perhaps be pleasant to think that the World is so simple, but also rather gloomy to think that everyone (except you and your like minded pub chums) is wicked, venal, reckless, lazy and incompetent.
They seem also to think that complex societal problems have incredibly simple solutions that can be arrived at by a couple of sensible good chaps in the pub that no one has ever thought of before. It must perhaps be pleasant to think that the World is so simple, but also rather gloomy to think that everyone (except you and your like minded pub chums) is wicked, venal, reckless, lazy and incompetent.
Your definition is incorrect. Negligence means failure to adhere to the standard of care that is contextually appropriate.
Why should there be an entitlement to compensation for things turning out badly but without negligence? If I am driving carefully but still crash my car because a deer makes me swerve, or the wind blows a tree branch into the road, should I be compensated? If a medical procedure with variable possible outcomes turns out badly, having been competently performed, why should I be compensated? Who should pay?
Why should there be an entitlement to compensation for things turning out badly but without negligence? If I am driving carefully but still crash my car because a deer makes me swerve, or the wind blows a tree branch into the road, should I be compensated? If a medical procedure with variable possible outcomes turns out badly, having been competently performed, why should I be compensated? Who should pay?
A quick mini teach-in for non lawyers:
The law of negligence is about relationships between people that are not regulated by contract. In some circumstances, the law treats us as "neighbours" who have to take reasonable care not to harm one another by actions, omissions, and sometimes by words. The existence of a duty of care depends on context, and the standard of care to be taken also depends on context, but in summary you have to be reasonably careful not to harm others.
The law recognises that some things just happen by accident, with no one to blame.
In the context of medicine and other expert professional activities, the law requires the practitioner to perform to the standard of the reasonably competent practitioner versed in the relevant field of activity. The law does not require error free performance, and recognises that a practitioner can make a wrong judgment and not be negligent. At the same time, the existence of the law of negligence helps to impose discipline and professionalism on those who practise specialised arts such as medicine, law, accountancy, and so on. Take it too far and it promotes defensive practice, and can act as a brake on innovation. Abolish it and risk cowboy practices.
Ambulance chasing is a wretched thing, and allowing lawyers to take a commercial stake in the outcome of a claim is in my view a bad idea. We have to resist creeping Americanisation in the practice of law, and hold on to the traditionally higher ethical standards of English/Welsh and Scots lawyers, but the defences have been crumbling steadily for as long as I have been a lawyer.
Sometimes I think to myself: "Why not just be a shyster? Everyone thinks that I'm a shyster anyway, and I see shysters getting away with it. Why not just join them?" But, I don't want to. Most of the lawyers I know think the same as me, and make the effort to practise ethically, but maybe one day we will be a minority. I don't know. As I said, the OP and many others think that we are all crooks anyway, but I don't care what they think.
The law of negligence is about relationships between people that are not regulated by contract. In some circumstances, the law treats us as "neighbours" who have to take reasonable care not to harm one another by actions, omissions, and sometimes by words. The existence of a duty of care depends on context, and the standard of care to be taken also depends on context, but in summary you have to be reasonably careful not to harm others.
The law recognises that some things just happen by accident, with no one to blame.
In the context of medicine and other expert professional activities, the law requires the practitioner to perform to the standard of the reasonably competent practitioner versed in the relevant field of activity. The law does not require error free performance, and recognises that a practitioner can make a wrong judgment and not be negligent. At the same time, the existence of the law of negligence helps to impose discipline and professionalism on those who practise specialised arts such as medicine, law, accountancy, and so on. Take it too far and it promotes defensive practice, and can act as a brake on innovation. Abolish it and risk cowboy practices.
Ambulance chasing is a wretched thing, and allowing lawyers to take a commercial stake in the outcome of a claim is in my view a bad idea. We have to resist creeping Americanisation in the practice of law, and hold on to the traditionally higher ethical standards of English/Welsh and Scots lawyers, but the defences have been crumbling steadily for as long as I have been a lawyer.
Sometimes I think to myself: "Why not just be a shyster? Everyone thinks that I'm a shyster anyway, and I see shysters getting away with it. Why not just join them?" But, I don't want to. Most of the lawyers I know think the same as me, and make the effort to practise ethically, but maybe one day we will be a minority. I don't know. As I said, the OP and many others think that we are all crooks anyway, but I don't care what they think.
The vast majority of professional negligence cases settle before trial, or the only issue at trial is the amount of compensation, liability having been conceded. The media reports stuff that goes wrong, as "things go as they are supposed to" does not make good copy, and fails to feed the OP's need to feel permanently outraged.
Who is to blame for compensation culture is a chicken and egg question. It's partly the wrong sort of lawyers, but partly also their greedy clients and the media that fuels their expectations by promoting a blame culture. Look at all those TV shows naming and shaming, and the game show formats that are all about public humiliation of contestants.
This sub forum regularly throws up examples of PH'ers who appear to have a culturally embedded belief that they have an entitlement to compo, unprompted by any lawyer, often in relation to matters that most of us would shrug off as stuff that happens.
This sub forum regularly throws up examples of PH'ers who appear to have a culturally embedded belief that they have an entitlement to compo, unprompted by any lawyer, often in relation to matters that most of us would shrug off as stuff that happens.
Breadvan72 said:
The essence of the Daily Mail mentality, as exemplified by the opening post, and some other posts on this thread, appears to be to take one story and from that story conclude that an entire system is fundamentally broken. The subject can be police, prisons, hospitals, schools, courts, you name it. The why oh why ists read these stories, and confidently assert that all of these systems are run entirely by the corrupt and/or the incompetent. You can point out to them as much as you like that the story shows things going wrong, or indeed that the story has been misreported, and that reality is nuanced and complicated and not cartoonish and simple, but you will be wasting your effort. The why oh why ists want to believe that everything is broken. It seems to comfort them in some way.
They seem also to think that complex societal problems have incredibly simple solutions that can be arrived at by a couple of sensible good chaps in the pub that no one has ever thought of before. It must perhaps be pleasant to think that the World is so simple, but also rather gloomy to think that everyone (except you and your like minded pub chums) is wicked, venal, reckless, lazy and incompetent.
Quite. They seem also to think that complex societal problems have incredibly simple solutions that can be arrived at by a couple of sensible good chaps in the pub that no one has ever thought of before. It must perhaps be pleasant to think that the World is so simple, but also rather gloomy to think that everyone (except you and your like minded pub chums) is wicked, venal, reckless, lazy and incompetent.
The irony is, is that events are reported like the OP's link are rare and extreme and thus stand out. If they were the norm then they'd not bother reporting them.
La Liga said:
Breadvan72 said:
The essence of the Daily Mail mentality, as exemplified by the opening post, and some other posts on this thread, appears to be to take one story and from that story conclude that an entire system is fundamentally broken. The subject can be police, prisons, hospitals, schools, courts, you name it. The why oh why ists read these stories, and confidently assert that all of these systems are run entirely by the corrupt and/or the incompetent. You can point out to them as much as you like that the story shows things going wrong, or indeed that the story has been misreported, and that reality is nuanced and complicated and not cartoonish and simple, but you will be wasting your effort. The why oh why ists want to believe that everything is broken. It seems to comfort them in some way.
They seem also to think that complex societal problems have incredibly simple solutions that can be arrived at by a couple of sensible good chaps in the pub that no one has ever thought of before. It must perhaps be pleasant to think that the World is so simple, but also rather gloomy to think that everyone (except you and your like minded pub chums) is wicked, venal, reckless, lazy and incompetent.
Quite. They seem also to think that complex societal problems have incredibly simple solutions that can be arrived at by a couple of sensible good chaps in the pub that no one has ever thought of before. It must perhaps be pleasant to think that the World is so simple, but also rather gloomy to think that everyone (except you and your like minded pub chums) is wicked, venal, reckless, lazy and incompetent.
The irony is, is that events are reported like the OP's link are rare and extreme and thus stand out. If they were the norm then they'd not bother reporting them.
Face it; the legal profession's main interest is vested in its members. Always has been, always will be.
Wicked, venal, reckless, lazy and incompetent? Perhaps no more than any other 'profession'.
Greedy and self interested? Absolutely, in my opinion and experience
REALIST123 said:
Rare and extreme? Really? If that were the case I doubt very much that we would see so many ambulance chasing law firms advertising.
Face it; the legal profession's main interest is vested in its members. Always has been, always will be.
Wicked, venal, reckless, lazy and incompetent? Perhaps no more than any other 'profession'.
Greedy and self interested? Absolutely, in my opinion and experience
The legal profession covers a vast range of areas with most people not doing the above. The Mail wishes to tar the legal profession and "lawyers" with the same brush. It appears to have worked.Face it; the legal profession's main interest is vested in its members. Always has been, always will be.
Wicked, venal, reckless, lazy and incompetent? Perhaps no more than any other 'profession'.
Greedy and self interested? Absolutely, in my opinion and experience
carinaman said:
But that's no different from what the police do if they get anything juicy is it? Look at the taped 999 call about the bloke wanting to complain about a prostitute or the woman calling up because the man in the Ice Cream van won't give her more Sprinkles on her 99.
Not quite. The extreme part isn't the underlying message like the Mail's implication and agenda is i.e. 'this rare example shows that all lawyers are bad'. The 'sprinkles' is an extreme scenario of silliness, but what does is the fundamental component to that example and the point it's making? It's that the 999 system is misused, which it is. On a daily basis. So it's not a rarity.
But even if it were, the question of 'impact' can change the justification. Even if 999 misuse were very rare and this 'sprinkles' incident used in the same way like you're drawing the comparisons, the risk and impact of a rare, misused call could be 'life and death', so could be justified in that manner.
When I started at the Bar in the mid 1980s it was considered rather bad form even to have a business card, and touting of all forms was frowned upon. Of course, people did network (that word was not yet in use) in informal ways, and even then there were occasional beauty parades, but it was all very low key. Nowadays my chambers employs a team of professional marketing staff, and I am on constant three line whips to turn up to assorted schmoozefests (Attending these, I feel that I might as well hang a sign from my neck saying "will work for canapés"). Our marketing, however, is directed at solicitors and in-house lawyers, and we don't have billboards or adverts in local media. I agree that allowing pretty much unlimited advertising was a bad idea, as was allowing conditional fee agreements (and now even worse, US style contingency fees in which the lawyer takes a stake in the action).
Clients at the upper end of the market tend to be sophisticated, hard bargaining, and often not very loyal -they shop and switch all over the place. Clients at the lower end of the market tend to be vulnerable to being schmoozed and bamboozled by shady operators, and of course may be foolishly looking for something for nothing - the good grifter always finds his mark.
Clients at the upper end of the market tend to be sophisticated, hard bargaining, and often not very loyal -they shop and switch all over the place. Clients at the lower end of the market tend to be vulnerable to being schmoozed and bamboozled by shady operators, and of course may be foolishly looking for something for nothing - the good grifter always finds his mark.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 28th June 09:05
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff