No win No fee solicitor
Discussion
I think a no win no fee solicitor is not the way to go with the NHS
My experience is that a no win no fee is a particularly lazy form of solicitor who will pitch a monetary value at the NHS hoping that it will be small enough to be paid without bothering to fight. The patient/claimant gets very little, or nothing of that.
Negligence is quite a high bar to prove in medical cases and probably requires a medical negligence specialist. The pay-out can be high but I think most people don't understand what medical negligent is and therefore whether their doc is culpable or not. So I would try an initial consultation with a sepcialist you trust.
The question is, do you want a bit of free cash, or do you actually want to effect change?
My experience is that a no win no fee is a particularly lazy form of solicitor who will pitch a monetary value at the NHS hoping that it will be small enough to be paid without bothering to fight. The patient/claimant gets very little, or nothing of that.
Negligence is quite a high bar to prove in medical cases and probably requires a medical negligence specialist. The pay-out can be high but I think most people don't understand what medical negligent is and therefore whether their doc is culpable or not. So I would try an initial consultation with a sepcialist you trust.
The question is, do you want a bit of free cash, or do you actually want to effect change?
LordFlathead said:
mgsontour said:
NHS failures following surgery.
I was in a similar situation 4 years ago. Decided against it as any compensation would come from the NHS pot and it's on its knees already.If you go that way, you are in for a long, hard battle, one that will take its toll on you. Further, the brief will take their toll of any reward.
If you want to have a go back at the NHS then you will make no particular impact. If you want to have a go at a particular person/hospital/system, then perhaps complain, using a brief.
I went to a brief as I wanted to sue my employer. I prepared a brief - it was my job - and I said it wasn't about the money. He strongly advised me not to go ahead as I would gain no satisfaction at the end. That was what he found after many such jobs. Great advice. I had the sense, remarkably, to follow it. He charged over £100 just for the chat. Worth it.
If you want to have a go back at the NHS then you will make no particular impact. If you want to have a go at a particular person/hospital/system, then perhaps complain, using a brief.
I went to a brief as I wanted to sue my employer. I prepared a brief - it was my job - and I said it wasn't about the money. He strongly advised me not to go ahead as I would gain no satisfaction at the end. That was what he found after many such jobs. Great advice. I had the sense, remarkably, to follow it. He charged over £100 just for the chat. Worth it.
I suspect most people bringing legitimate damages claims against the NHS are seeking redress for said damages not just trying to get “free money” or to embark on a personal campaign against institutionalised mediocrity.
If your house burned down you wouldn’t convince yourself it would be an act of extreme virtue to forgo any claim against your insurer as an act of benevolence towards their shareholders.
Conditional fee arrangements are entirely normal in this context and used by all the most reputable firms as well as any others.
OP send me a message if you want a recommendation based on direct involvement in a high value NWNF medical neg claim
If your house burned down you wouldn’t convince yourself it would be an act of extreme virtue to forgo any claim against your insurer as an act of benevolence towards their shareholders.
Conditional fee arrangements are entirely normal in this context and used by all the most reputable firms as well as any others.
OP send me a message if you want a recommendation based on direct involvement in a high value NWNF medical neg claim
theboss said:
I suspect most people bringing legitimate damages claims against the NHS are seeking redress for said damages not just trying to get “free money” or to embark on a personal campaign against institutionalised mediocrity.
If your house burned down you wouldn’t convince yourself it would be an act of extreme virtue to forgo any claim against your insurer as an act of benevolence towards their shareholders.
Conditional fee arrangements are entirely normal in this context and used by all the most reputable firms as well as any others.
OP send me a message if you want a recommendation based on direct involvement in a high value NWNF medical neg claim
I slightly more than suspect you are wrong. Most people making claims against the NHS are trying for free money. That isn't to say there aren't very legitimate claims that should be brought against the NHS, but the vast majority are based on a misunderstanding of the word negligence. The rest are frivolous claims aimed at extracting 'money for nothing' due to the cost of the NHS defending them. If your house burned down you wouldn’t convince yourself it would be an act of extreme virtue to forgo any claim against your insurer as an act of benevolence towards their shareholders.
Conditional fee arrangements are entirely normal in this context and used by all the most reputable firms as well as any others.
OP send me a message if you want a recommendation based on direct involvement in a high value NWNF medical neg claim
The no win no fee solicitors are overwhelmingly there to support the frivolous end of the market.
I would advise the op to discuss his claim with a reputable medical negligence company as the cost of the initial advice given would be well worth it in the long run as already suggested by other posters.
This is not a slight on the OP, and difficult to advise based on the little information here, but negligence is not a wrong diagnosis, or misdiagnosis, it is not even a delay in diagnosis if the healthcare team followed steps for diagnosis that could reasonable have been needed. Neither is negligence side effects or known complications after surgery.
julian64 said:
I slightly more than suspect you are wrong. Most people making claims against the NHS are trying for free money. That isn't to say there aren't very legitimate claims that should be brought against the NHS, but the vast majority are based on a misunderstanding of the word negligence. The rest are frivolous claims aimed at extracting 'money for nothing' due to the cost of the NHS defending them.
The no win no fee solicitors are overwhelmingly there to support the frivolous end of the market.
I would advise the op to discuss his claim with a reputable medical negligence company as the cost of the initial advice given would be well worth it in the long run as already suggested by other posters.
This is not a slight on the OP, and difficult to advise based on the little information here, but negligence is not a wrong diagnosis, or misdiagnosis, it is not even a delay in diagnosis if the healthcare team followed steps for diagnosis that could reasonable have been needed. Neither is negligence side effects or known complications after surgery.
I'm curious to know why you and others think that "no win no fee" is the mark of an unscrupulous lawyer and/or claim.The no win no fee solicitors are overwhelmingly there to support the frivolous end of the market.
I would advise the op to discuss his claim with a reputable medical negligence company as the cost of the initial advice given would be well worth it in the long run as already suggested by other posters.
This is not a slight on the OP, and difficult to advise based on the little information here, but negligence is not a wrong diagnosis, or misdiagnosis, it is not even a delay in diagnosis if the healthcare team followed steps for diagnosis that could reasonable have been needed. Neither is negligence side effects or known complications after surgery.
How do you think the serious, unfrivolous claims are funded in most cases?
There is no nuanced definition of negligence. All of the things you refer to may be instances of clinical negligence. Obviously establishing liability is far from trivial in most cases.
I agree the OP or anyone else considering such a claim should speak to a specialist.
theboss said:
I'm curious to know why you and others think that "no win no fee" is the mark of an unscrupulous lawyer and/or claim.
How do you think the serious, unfrivolous claims are funded in most cases?
There is no nuanced definition of negligence. All of the things you refer to may be instances of clinical negligence. Obviously establishing liability is far from trivial in most cases.
I agree the OP or anyone else considering such a claim should speak to a specialist.
I guess because I have seen it from both ends of the barrel. I work in the NHS, attended numerous medical defence lectures in my years and also helped a few people when change was needed to push their point to the people who could effect change or supply financial care to their loved ones. I've written letters and statement in support of patients and against them. How do you think the serious, unfrivolous claims are funded in most cases?
There is no nuanced definition of negligence. All of the things you refer to may be instances of clinical negligence. Obviously establishing liability is far from trivial in most cases.
I agree the OP or anyone else considering such a claim should speak to a specialist.
julian64 said:
I guess because I have seen it from both ends of the barrel. I work in the NHS, attended numerous medical defence lectures in my years and also helped a few people when change was needed to push their point to the people who could effect change or supply financial care to their loved ones. I've written letters and statement in support of patients and against them.
Point taken. I'm sure you've seen the worst sides of it including the frivolous and their representatives and I don't doubt that that imparts a certain dubious regard towards the industry.The same could be said from my perspective as I saw the institution move heaven and earth to defend the indefensible and subsequently lose.
theboss said:
Point taken. I'm sure you've seen the worst sides of it including the frivolous and their representatives and I don't doubt that that imparts a certain dubious regard towards the industry.
The same could be said from my perspective as I saw the institution move heaven and earth to defend the indefensible and subsequently lose.
I'm somewhat surprised at that because it has been some years since the medical defence unions promised to defend the reputation of a doctor. The only reason they defend nowadays is to mitigate costs. Usually by taking a financial position on whether something is defensible or not.The same could be said from my perspective as I saw the institution move heaven and earth to defend the indefensible and subsequently lose.
If it were me I'd contact a couple of Solicitors and ask for a 1/2 to 1 hour no obligation chat. If they know what they are doing they should be able to cover your claim in broad strokes and give you an idea of the likely outcome and potential claim value.
Hopefully you know of 2 or 3 in the area that come recommended and/or specialise in that particular area of law.
PM me if you want me to put you in touch with a reputable firm who can give you an outline of the costs involved and if no win/no fee is an option.
Home insurance / Car insurance policies quite often have legal expenses included or you may well have added them at the point of purchase.
IANAL
Hopefully you know of 2 or 3 in the area that come recommended and/or specialise in that particular area of law.
PM me if you want me to put you in touch with a reputable firm who can give you an outline of the costs involved and if no win/no fee is an option.
Home insurance / Car insurance policies quite often have legal expenses included or you may well have added them at the point of purchase.
IANAL
eps said:
If it were me I'd contact a couple of Solicitors and ask for a 1/2 to 1 hour no obligation chat. If they know what they are doing they should be able to cover your claim in broad strokes and give you an idea of the likely outcome and potential claim value.
Hopefully you know of 2 or 3 in the area that come recommended and/or specialise in that particular area of law.
PM me if you want me to put you in touch with a reputable firm who can give you an outline of the costs involved and if no win/no fee is an option.
Home insurance / Car insurance policies quite often have legal expenses included or you may well have added them at the point of purchase.
IANAL
Which is exactly what Mrs J has done in relation to an employment issue. Both local solicitors offered 'advice' for free over the phone and confirmed that she had a valid case. We're currently filling in paperwork to use the legal cover included in our home insurance. They've confirmed that they review the claim before confirming if they will pay legal costs; weighing up the costs, the likely chance of success and the likely settlement value. Hopefully you know of 2 or 3 in the area that come recommended and/or specialise in that particular area of law.
PM me if you want me to put you in touch with a reputable firm who can give you an outline of the costs involved and if no win/no fee is an option.
Home insurance / Car insurance policies quite often have legal expenses included or you may well have added them at the point of purchase.
IANAL
You should have a look at this website, as the AVMA accredited solicitors are all specialists - https://www.avma.org.uk/help-advice/find-a-solicit...
Ignore all the nonsense about not using a solicitor that operates conditional fee agreements. For the vast majority of people it's the only way to fund a clinical negligence claim. Your legal bill for pursuing a claim to trial could easily be £100k, and if you lose you could face having to pay a similar bill from the defendant. If you use a CFA you can get insurance against losing.
However, you'll have to be prepared to lose up to 25% of your compensation to the solicitor by way of a `success fee'.
If you do have legal expenses insurance then it's probably the best bet, as you don't have to pay the success fee. But make sure you insist on getting a specialist clinical negligence solicitor, not just some crap panel firm that deals with dodgy washing machines that the legal expenses company may try to fob you off with.
Ignore all the nonsense about not using a solicitor that operates conditional fee agreements. For the vast majority of people it's the only way to fund a clinical negligence claim. Your legal bill for pursuing a claim to trial could easily be £100k, and if you lose you could face having to pay a similar bill from the defendant. If you use a CFA you can get insurance against losing.
However, you'll have to be prepared to lose up to 25% of your compensation to the solicitor by way of a `success fee'.
If you do have legal expenses insurance then it's probably the best bet, as you don't have to pay the success fee. But make sure you insist on getting a specialist clinical negligence solicitor, not just some crap panel firm that deals with dodgy washing machines that the legal expenses company may try to fob you off with.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff