Communicating with personal injury clients

Personal injury clients have completely unrealistic expectations when it comes to communication with their lawyers — and meeting those expectations is a major challenge for most plaintiffs’ personal injury lawyers.
Lack of communication, in both frequency and quality, is probably the most common complaint made by personal injury clients about their lawyers. Most plaintiffs’ personal injury law firms are regularly consulted by accident victims dissatisfied with their lawyers. While  the consulted lawyer should encourage the potential client to communicate his or her concerns to the current lawyer, communication itself is almost always the problem.
When it comes to specific communication complaints, personal injury clients usually say either that the lawyer is not communicating often enough or has provided misinformation.
There are some key reasons why personal injury clients demand regular communication with their lawyers. The most obvious reason is that the lives of personal injury clients are in a shambles — they are unable to work, need care and treatment, can’t provide care to their dependents and worry about paying their bills. On top of all of that, the accident victim is in extreme pain and discomfort along with having his or her life scrutinized by the insurance companies involved. Under these circumstances, the personal injury client desperately needs a lawyer who can not only advocate on his or her behalf, but who will also answer questions in a timely and understandable manner.
Another reason why personal injury clients may demand constant communication with their lawyers may stem from the nature of the contingency fee relationship. Personal injury clients are most often charged legal fees on a contingency fee basis, meaning that they are not really being billed by the hour. Accordingly, there is no financial deterrent for personal injury clients to try to engage in communication with their lawyers — by whatever means, whether phone, email, text message or otherwise.
One solution to economically satisfy clients requiring frequent interaction is to set out some basic communication guidelines with the client right from the outset. Having a common understanding of appropriate levels and means of communication will reduce the level of frustration that may otherwise be experienced by both personal injury clients and lawyers. Clients who  know they will receive a file update at the end of each month are less likely to call each week.

Judge's anger after three scaffolders make £70,000 injury claim for van crash - at 1 MPH

Scaffolders tried to claim thousands in compensation after a council van collided with their lorry - at one mile an hour.
Town hall chiefs faced a £70,000 bill following the bump in slow-moving traffic.
The driver, James Stubbs of Bolton, and two passengers in the lorry, Thomas and Gareth Gemmell, claimed they suffered whiplash, and launched personal injury claims for £3,700.  
Their bosses also submitted a £6,430 claim for damage to the vehicle and 'loss of use'.  

Workmen from S&S Scaffolding Ltd tried to claim thousands in compensation after a council van collided with their lorry at 1mph. The company, from Atherton, near Wigan, had previously done work for the council
The council accepted blame for the collision - but refuted both compensation claims and challenged the £50,000 legal costs.  
Now a judge has thrown out the action after hearing from two expert witnesses.  
One, an independent engineer, said that the damage sustained by the lorry would have cost no more than £300 to repair.

And an eyewitness said both vehicles were travelling at between one and two miles per hour.
District Judge Shaw ruled at Bolton County Court that no injuries or any significant damage was caused and described the claim for the van's damage and its loss of use as 'wholly wrong'.

 

Paul McKevitt from Wigan council says local authorities are facing an increasing amount of claims

He also dismissed the legal bill claim of more than £50,000 and ordered that Wigan council did not have to pay the £300 repair bill to the van.   The council was awarded £9,332.  Council bosses today welcomed the ruling and said local authorities across the country were facing an increasing number of 'grossly exaggerated' claims involving low-speed road traffic collisions.
It was also revealed that the van's owners, S&S Scaffolding Ltd from Atherton, near Wigan, had carried out work on behalf of the council in the past.
The collision took place in Tyldesley, near Wigan, in 2008.
The lorry's driver Mr Stubbs, of Henley Grove, Bolton, and passengers Thomas Gemmell and his son Gareth, of Hinkler Avenue, Bolton, brought the claim alongside the company.
Paul McKevitt from Wigan council said: 'Local authorities across the country are facing an increasing number of claims from people who say they were injured in low-speed impacts but this council is determined to scrutinise all allegations in order to protect public funds.
'It's particularly disappointing, as this company has done work for the council in the past, and grossly exaggerated claims such as this are damaging to trust and future working relationships.
'The facts just didn't stack up and by putting a coherent and persuasive defence before the court we have saved the council tax payers of this borough more than £70,000 of public money.
'We hope this verdict sends a clear message that we will do all we can to protect public money and any claims that appear  exaggerated will simply not succeed.'
The company refused to comment. Mr Stubbs and Gareth Gemmell couldn't be reached for comment. Thomas Gemmell declined to comment.

injuryclaimspecialist nowinnofee Have a look at our website or subscribe to our blog at www.injuryclaimhelpline.wordpress.com

Most personal injury claims could be handled online under planned reform

Nine in ten personal injury claims could be dealt with online, slashing lawyer fees and keeping hundreds of thousands of cases out of the courts, under planned reform unveiled yesterday.

Those seeking up to £50,000 in compensation after being hurt through another’s error will be able to conduct the case via the internet, under the proposals from Kenneth Clarke, the Justice Secretary.

In a separate move, parties will be banned from taking civil cases to the small claims court unless they first try mediation.

The moves are aimed at combating the compensation culture and slashing the huge legal fees charged by lawyers.

Reforms also include a crack down on the “no win no fee” regime which has helped fuel the soaring bills and meant fighting claims has become an “expensive and daunting nightmare”, Mr Clarke said.

The average legal costs in such cases is now the equivalent of 142 per cent of actual damages awarded, compared with 56 per cent in 1999.

Over the same period the value of damages awarded has increased by a third while the value of legal fees has more than trebled.
Mr Clarke yesterday published a series of reforms and proposed changes to cut legal fees, keep more cases out of the courts and better protect those being sued.
He plans to expand an online service that currently deals with road traffic related personal injury claims of less than £10,000.
Court is only used as a last resort if there fails to be a settlement.
The system allows individuals, and or their lawyers, to conduct claims via a website and limits lawyer fees to a maximum of £1,200 or £1,700 if it goes to court.
Mr Clarke is now considering raising the threshold to claims of up to £50,000 and extending it to clinical, employer and public body injury claims.
Officials estimate such a move would cover 90 per cent of all personal injury claims.
In an unrelated move, there are also plans to increase the threshold for compensation in the small claims court from £5,000 to £15,000.