Here is a startling eye-opener.
The cost of criminal negligence claims to the National Health Service (NHS) in Britain has risen by nearly10 billion in the last five years to over16 billion.
This certainly is a massive liability.
It is estimated that one-third of the money paid by the NHS litigation authority goes to the lawyers. It appears a good portion of this liability is driven by €no win no fee' lawyers.
The Department of Health is now trying to come to grips with this issue.
The above is a case where there is a sharp focus on the part of an organization to reduce litigation liabilities. Reducing clinical negligence liabilities is not easy. It may need cracking down on high claimant lawyer fees and also preventing incidents of negligence.
Who are €no win no fee€ lawyers?
For that we must first understand what a €no win no fee€ system is. In a €no win no fee,€ the fee is payable by the client only if there is a favorable legal outcome. This means the lawyer charges the fees only if the court case is successful or is favorably settled out of court.
This system is called as €contingent fee' in the United States and €conditional fee' in England and Wales.
The objective of this system was to help the poor pursue their cases, otherwise only the wealthy would be able to pursue litigation in courts.
But what is the reality? Is such a system affording adequate access to compensation, especially in a road traffic accident claim?
Far from it - in fact, personal injury compensation is failing consumers.
According to a report, nearly 2.5 million people in the UK suffer accidental injuries every year. The result is- many lose income, their ability to continue with their routine activities, and face lifestyle changes for the worse.
For the thousands of people who are affected by accidents through no fault of their own, it is extremely difficult to pursue a claim for compensation without representation.
The legal aid for costs of litigation was withdrawn in 2000 and €conditional fee' agreements were put in place. In this system, the legal costs are covered by the losing party.
This system is beset with problems. Consumers are victims of high pressure tactics, improper sales, and marketing practices by lawyers. In addition, most consumers are not fully aware of the risks and liabilities.
The only solution to such a scenario is controlling and reducing legal costs by reforming the system. The final objective must be to make compensation fairer by linking costs and damages.
The cost of criminal negligence claims to the National Health Service (NHS) in Britain has risen by nearly10 billion in the last five years to over16 billion.
This certainly is a massive liability.
It is estimated that one-third of the money paid by the NHS litigation authority goes to the lawyers. It appears a good portion of this liability is driven by €no win no fee' lawyers.
The Department of Health is now trying to come to grips with this issue.
The above is a case where there is a sharp focus on the part of an organization to reduce litigation liabilities. Reducing clinical negligence liabilities is not easy. It may need cracking down on high claimant lawyer fees and also preventing incidents of negligence.
Who are €no win no fee€ lawyers?
For that we must first understand what a €no win no fee€ system is. In a €no win no fee,€ the fee is payable by the client only if there is a favorable legal outcome. This means the lawyer charges the fees only if the court case is successful or is favorably settled out of court.
This system is called as €contingent fee' in the United States and €conditional fee' in England and Wales.
The objective of this system was to help the poor pursue their cases, otherwise only the wealthy would be able to pursue litigation in courts.
But what is the reality? Is such a system affording adequate access to compensation, especially in a road traffic accident claim?
Far from it - in fact, personal injury compensation is failing consumers.
According to a report, nearly 2.5 million people in the UK suffer accidental injuries every year. The result is- many lose income, their ability to continue with their routine activities, and face lifestyle changes for the worse.
For the thousands of people who are affected by accidents through no fault of their own, it is extremely difficult to pursue a claim for compensation without representation.
The legal aid for costs of litigation was withdrawn in 2000 and €conditional fee' agreements were put in place. In this system, the legal costs are covered by the losing party.
This system is beset with problems. Consumers are victims of high pressure tactics, improper sales, and marketing practices by lawyers. In addition, most consumers are not fully aware of the risks and liabilities.
The only solution to such a scenario is controlling and reducing legal costs by reforming the system. The final objective must be to make compensation fairer by linking costs and damages.
SHARE
