Lawclaim.net Blog

The question that Claimant lawyers (solicitors / barristers) have oft found themselves confronted with over the past decade (post-Access to Justice Act and Woolf reforms significantly) is in fact whether we, as lawyers practising in the field of personal injury, are merely feeding off the misery of others.

I do not agree that we are either ambulance chasers or that we earn a living feeding off other peoples misery.

Dealing first of all with misery. I do not believe that advising, assisting and representing a person who is a victim of a civil wrong and who may have suffered an injury of various degrees is living off their misery. As we have said on numerous occasions in the past in our publications, the person who is a victim of a civil wrong is entitled to, under English law, to turn to the Courts of the land to obtain recompense. As the recompense has to equate in financial terms i.e. compensation, the process has evolved over centuries to ascertain what would be an equitable and just remuneration to compensate a victim of civil wrong.

I accept that the amount of legal costs that a lawyer recovers depends on the extent of the injuries suffered by a victim. Therefore the more serious an injury the greater the chance that the lawyer will recover higher legal fees. Whilst many of us are involved in this area of law to fulfil a youthful ambition of serving the public, it is a fact that business heads are turned and are attracted to seriously injured victims. However, it is neither a wish nor expectation that we would wish on our brethren serious injuries so that we could receive larger fees.

Access to justice through providing advice, assistance and representation for victims of wrong is a fundamental right afforded to us as British citizens and we, as lawyers, operate within a centuries old system of common law to advance the victim’s claim to the wrongdoers or their insurer’s and/or their legal representatives.

I accept that as in any walk of life there are members of my profession, particularly with the opening of advertising and involvement of intermediaries such as claims management companies that marketing is directed more purely for the purpose of generating substantial business rather than to the victims cause.

It is an old established principal that we have a fault based system. Therefore a victim of wrong has to establish that the wrongdoer is negligent before succeeding in a claim for compensation.

It is also a part of our age old system that we have an adversarial system which leads to the wrongdoer who almost always is insured being represented by a experienced claim handler or an experienced insurance litigator (solicitor).

It is therefore of utmost importance for there to be a just and equitable remuneration that in this adversarial system a victim of wrong is properly and adequately represented.

I accept that since 1999 with changing of the rules and protocol, systems have been adopted to simplify the process of making a claim particularly in road traffic accidents. That, it is perfectly possible for a victim of wrong to present and advanced his/her claim on their own before a claim handler and/or insurers legal representatives.

It is to be borne in mind that insurance companies underwrite these risks as a business. Their expectation, as in all businesses is to make a profit, then to protect the interest of rogue motorists, occupiers of land and buildings, local authorities and professional bodies. Their aims are to generate income from the premium and to pay out as little as possible on those premiums. Their aim is to make a profit.

To an Underwriter (insurer) a claim is a ‘hit’ on their profit. Therefore they train their claim handlers, whether they be in-house or outside (known as loss adjusters) so that all steps available under common law are used to minimise and to reduce the payment to the victim of wrong.

In our adversarial system it would be breach of a fundamental right of a citizen not to have access to lawyers and to be represented against large corporate entities and that we, the “ambulance chasers”, come into our own and represent these victims in these circumstances.

I believe that we offer a valuable service in administrating justice although I accept that the process of claim and adjudication by the civil courts does not necessarily bring justice. That is because the aim of the system is to recompense the victim of wrong in the best way that is available in our common law jurisdiction.

For the reasons given above I do not shirk from telling those I meet, privately and professionally, that I am a personal injury lawyer. I am optimistic that if any of my clients are asked whether we give added value and represented them in a professional way that they would do so.

If you would like more information on accidents at work, accidents in a public place, trip and slips, road traffic accidents or any other aspect of personal injury law please contact us via our dedicated personal injury website www.lawclaim.net.

Abdul Hafezi