Compensation Culture

[Reverend Minge]

I'm all for people being compensated financially if their lives get buttfucked by other people's negligence or the hand of god. But I'm sure I'm not alone in wanting to give a dry slap to the chancers who bleat for cash when in reality they are obviously unable to deal with everyday life or are the architects of their own misfortune but feel that "somebody" is to blame.

Although the ambulance-chaser lawyers now advertise their no-win-no-fee compensation culture on British TV, the Americans are still way ahead of the game - and beware, this kind of shit will be on our shores soon.

When I was over in the States a few years ago I saw a news item about a female prison warder who had posed nude in a ....er, "gentlemans" magazine. This had come to the attention of her employers who were less than chuffed but allowed her to keep her job. Unfortunately, it had also come to the attention of the prisoners at the jail where she worked who - not surprisingly - took the piss.

Not nice, but you'd think she'd be glad she got away with keeping her job. But no. As the prisoners would make comments about her centrefold photos she now felt that she had lost the authority to carry on with her duties. Tough shit, perhaps she should have thought of that earlier. So who's to blame for all this? Certainly not the prison warder who got her tits out - as she thought it was the prison service who was to blame and was suing them for 80 million dollars.

Wha? How? And why 80 million dollars? Why not make it 50 trillion dollars?

An extreme case maybe, but these losers are taken seriously and given their day in court when they should be given a good shaking and slapped legs.

Has personal responsibility gone out the window? Have you come across this kind of pond life first-hand? I'm stressed and it's got to be somebody's fault.....

[Sherringford Hovis]

Solicitors and insurance companies steal damages money that rightfully belongs to injured children.

I got run over when I was 13 - I was on my bike on my way to Scouts on a Friday evening, and this idiot in his car at a T-junction "just didn't see me" and squashed me, resulting in broken femur, arm and ribs. I was in hospital, flat on my back in painful traction for 11 weeks and missed a whole term of school, and on crutches for a good few months after that. It took me two years to stop having nightmares, and arguably my school grades never recovered (could just have been puberty though...)

My parents understandably thought that some damages might be in order, so went for the fairly modest figure of £5K. The guy that ran me over was mortified by what he had done, and did everything he could to apologise and offer some damages from his savings, but his insurance company were complete cunts, even threatening to take HIM to court if he continued to communicate with me or my family. I still have a letter somewhere from the solicitors acting for the insurance company threatening to sue my Dad for "artificially inflating" the claim to the tune of £4.50, because the rear light on my otherwise unrecognisably mangled Raleigh Winner was still useable - they argued that because my Dad had ommitted to mention this in his breakdown of expenses incurred by the accident, that the whole claim was false.
After my Dad then went and got a solicitor of his own, the insurance company got even more petty, arguing that the trousers that had been cut off me at the side of the road by the paramedics could not be claimed for, because damaging them directly was not the responsibility of their client, among other things.

It took 4 years to sort out, and I got my £5k eventually, but my Dad had to spend nearly £7k on solicitors to get it - bear in mind that this was 1986, when £1K was real money. Luckily in this instance, my parents had good enough credit history to borrow the money to pay solicitors, and the court found in my favour and forced the insurance company to pay my Dad's legal costs; but had I been a kid from a not-so middle-class family, it's likely that I would've got nothing. If the insurance company had just paid out when requested, they would've saved themselves over £15k, rather than arguing the toss.

Since the law in the UK is now so tortuous that even barristers have trouble understanding it, and laws can be manipulated in favour of the wealthier party in any dispute without regard to the actual facts of the case, we effectively live in a lawless society. I figure that this state of affairs gives me the right to maim, kill or bankrupt anyone that does what I might consider to be an injustice to me, because it's the only way I can be sure of swift and appropriate retribution.

[Uncle_Z]

Much of this is very wrong indeed.  I may return when I am less inclined to rant.

[Uncle_Z]

Reverend Minge

Although the ambulance-chaser lawyers now advertise their no-win-no-fee compensation culture on British TV, the Americans are still way ahead of the game - and beware, this kind of shit will be on our shores soon.

No it won't.  To begin with the aggressive marketing strategies of our US cousins are ahem frowned upon.  Furthermore there is no intention to move from Conditional Fee arrangements (a pre-agreed percentage uplift on a solicitors normal fees depending on the perceived risk in the case eg. where causation is admitted but damage disputed then 10-20% uplift would be about right) to the US Contingency Fee model (where a percentage of the damages awarded goes to lawyers.  Eg. >80% of the Bhopal settlement figure was swallowed.)

...Certainly not the prison warder who got her tits out - as she thought it was the prison service who was to blame and was suing them for 80 million dollars.

I have little sympathy here.  The woman's actions were ill-conceived.  However, what are "gentlemens magazines" doing in the prison?  Is that normal / sensible?

Wha? How? And why 80 million dollars? Why not make it 50 trillion dollars?

Another couple of features of the US system are i) that Punitive Damages can be awarded.  (The amount has to be enough to make the defendant sit up and take note of what they have done.)  The concept translates loosely as "exemplary damages" in the UK but they are very rarely awarded.  ii) Damages in civil cases are decided by a jury.  This is the roulette wheel part of the system.  Remember when that lucky lady got burned by McD's coffee?  The learned judge directed the jury not to come back with "a Mickey Mouse Figure" for damages.  They wrongly assumed he meant "do not give a tiny award" and returned record breaking figures.  

This perpetuates the aggressive sales techniques.  A good percentage of a potentially stupid figure is "worth having".

Has personal responsibility gone out the window? Have you come across this kind of pond life first-hand? I'm stressed and it's got to be somebody's fault.....

This anecdote adds little but I will subject you to it anyway: I have supported insurers in defending an industrial deafness claim from a guy who was given induction training, regular refresher training, verbal warnings, written warnings and was eventually BANNED from the high noise area because of his refusal to wear defenders.


Mr Hovis's turn will follow after I've had a sarnie :)

[Bilko]

There have been quite a few of unbelievable claims for compensation and people have won, most of them being in America. On is a man was driving his 4x4 and put it into cruise control, happy with this he then went in the back of the 4x4 to make a cup of coffee. CRASH BANG what a dickhead. He took the car company to court because the manual does not state cruise control does not mean the vehicle will not steer itself around corners, and he won.

[Uncle_Z]

The sandwich can wait.

Sherringford Hovis

Solicitors and insurance companies steal damages money that rightfully belongs to injured children.

I am no fan of the motor insurance industry.  It is simple business policy that they should never pay out.  I would like to put you to proof on the "solicitors steal money" part of the equation but I think I know what you're getting at.  The losing side pays his opponents costs.  What's unfair about that?  What's unfair is that the methodology is used to :shudder: disincentivise a claimant from putting in proceedings, or at least keeping their claim within small claims liits to avoid adverse costs.

The rise of Conditional Fee Agreements and after-the-fact legal expense cover goes some way to redressing the balance for those who otehrwise could not afford to claim.

his insurance company were complete cunts, even threatening to take HIM to court if he continued to communicate with me or my family.

He was  / you were lucky they paid out at all since he was in breach of a fundamental condition of his policy

"artificially inflating" the claim to the tune of £4.50,

Now that one annoys me.  Worth trying on, but too fucking lame for words.

the court found in my favour and forced the insurance company to pay my Dad's legal costs

All's well etc.

Since the law in the UK is now so tortuous that even barristers have trouble understanding it

Which ones?  I will be sure not to use them.

, and laws can be manipulated in favour of the wealthier party in any dispute without regard to the actual facts of the case, we effectively live in a lawless society.

Aw c'mon this is just soundbitery surely?  Very poetic though.

I figure that this state of affairs gives me the right to maim, kill or bankrupt anyone that does what I might consider to be an injustice to me, because it's the only way I can be sure of swift and appropriate retribution.

Good plan.  Drop me a PM when you do as I know a couple of people who could do with the work (Now you have to ask yourself one thing, does Zeddy know gangsters or crim defence lawyers?  To tell you the truth in all the excitement etc.)

Now I've got all that out of the way I should stress that I do not approve of the compensation culture, particularly where it is used to squeeze a few quid out of local councils for a raised paving slab you could easily have avoided.  Corporations need to be taught about their responsibilities to the world.   Is the pocket the only place to hit them?  Should the damages all go as a windfall to a single claimant (and his attorney)?  Disappointingly even the massive damages payouts faced by US corps do not have a material impact on their margins.  (The tobacco giant that set up a payout fund allegedly did so on the basis that they could cover it in ten years revenue based on X,000 new addicts a day.  The individual payouts were dwarfed by their annual advertising spend in growth markets like Malaysia)

[mitzidog]

I have to declare an interest as I was knocked off a motorbike over 10 years ago, broken femur lots of scars etc. long physio etc. got about £20,000 but used it all up putting myself through a postgrad course.

I do think it is reasonable to expect compensation if someone else's deliberate OR careless act(s) causes you financial hardship or restricts your ability to work etc.

I just think that there should be a defence in law of "OH FOR FUCK'S SAKE" which would dismiss the claim of the bare breasted prison officer before it ever got near a court. Such a defence could apply to people who ignore reasonabl behaviour and as a result get injured (A burglar getting injured in his victim's house for instance - although I dont mean the Tony Martin type of thing - that's a different argument)

With such a defence the very real hardships suffered by people who have been the victims of car accidents, industrial injuries etc. could speed up their cases and the court and legal system could be freed up for more important work. (I can see lawyers arguing against this as it cuts down on their ambulance chasing fee grabbing)

[Reverend Minge]

This anecdote adds little but I will subject you to it anyway: I have supported insurers in defending an industrial deafness claim from a guy who was given induction training, regular refresher training, verbal warnings, written warnings and was eventually BANNED from the high noise area because of his refusal to wear defenders.

[Uncle_Z]

:blinkblink:

I will see if I can pre-empt your edit by adding "Yes, his line manager also got a written warning and additional training"

[Reverend Minge]

This anecdote adds little but I will subject you to it anyway: I have supported insurers in defending an industrial deafness claim from a guy who was given induction training, regular refresher training, verbal warnings, written warnings and was eventually BANNED from the high noise area because of his refusal to wear defenders.

I refer my learned friend to my original rant  - this guy is obviously an "architect of his own misfortune".

Although you say the American excesses won't/can't be repeated here, the example you mentioned above already shows that many people are too ready to blame "someone else" if there's a chance of a lump sum even if it's patently their own fault.

As for the other posters - claiming damages after injuries occurred during accidents is just what you pay your insurance for and is quite right.

[Sherringford Hovis]

, and laws can be manipulated in favour of the wealthier party in any dispute without regard to the actual facts of the case, we effectively live in a lawless society.

Aw c'mon this is just soundbitery surely?  Very poetic though.

You are Bill Oddie, and I claim my £5.

If you service your car in the street outside your council house and it's against local byelaws, the £4000 fine will fuck you up for years, whether or not you spilt any oil on the road.

If you're a venture capitalist wanting to take TOXIC ships apart in the North of England, the government will give you pots of taxpayers' money in subsidies to do so - despite the oppostition of just about everyone - and guarantee you a certain amount of exemption from prosecution when things inevitably go fucky and make local mothers give birth to things with three heads and terminal spackery.

If there wasn't one law for the rich and one for the poor, there'd be few advantages in being rich, other than having a nicer house and car than everyone else. The very fact that a solicitor is needed in a simple case such as mine makes a mockery of everything that the legal system that you so staunchly defend. I know that the guy that knocked me down was probably in breach of his policy, but that tells you that the law and the policy is stupid, not the man.

[simplistic]
If solicitors etc din't get paid if they lost a case, wouldn't the world be a better place?
[/simplistic]

Lawyers? I just haven't the words... You get paid whether you lose or win, so why should you give a fuck about anything other than your fees? And why do you get paid so fucking much? It's not jealousy or anything like that, but what exactly is it that solicitors actually do in order to justify all that money? I had a party wall dispute with a neighbour, and both my solicitor and that of my neighbour were both fucking useless at getting the facts right or doing what their client wanted. Pay solicitors the same wage as nurses or teachers - that'd sort out the good from the bad.

If you do big piles of pro bono and legal aid work, you have my respect; otherwise...

[Reverend Minge]

Is the whole compensation culture manufactured by lawyers to keep them in work? As Sherringford Hovis said, they don't give a fuck as long as they're paid so it sounds sensible from the lawyers point of view to egg people on to sue for instances where - if common sense prevailed - they would usually be told to get a fucking grip and get on with their lives.

[elderford]

On an aside, our higher education funding system is going a bit USA, this may well lead to students choosing those professions which will guarentee a good income to pay off those rather large debts, hence we will probably see more lawyers in the future, and of course they will have to find something to do.

[Sherringford Hovis]

Yet you can't get someone useful like a good plumber or electrician without paying lawyer prices either.

University? Pah.

[Uncle_Z]

If you service your car in the street outside your council house and it's against local byelaws, the £4000 fine will fuck you up for years, whether or not you spilt any oil on the road.

Excepting on-the-spot jobbies fines are means-tested so a bloke servicing his Merc outside his Kentish mews property would suffer more than your example.

If you're a venture capitalist wanting to take TOXIC ships apart in the North of England, the government will give you pots of taxpayers' money in subsidies to do so

If they were not subsidised the work and the skill-base would go elsewhere.

The very fact that a solicitor is needed in a simple case such as mine makes a mockery of everything that the legal system that you so staunchly defend.

If you check above I did not defend motor insurers.  I am broadly in favour of strict liability for RTAs against cyclists and peds.  Your solicitor stopped you from being at a disadvatage against the insurer's solicitor.  Would your dad have won if he'd pursued the claim himself?

I know that the guy that knocked me down was probably in breach of his policy, but that tells you that the law and the policy is stupid, not the man.

Why should an insurer indemnify someone without a corresponding right to conduct a proper defence of the case without being hampered by admissions?

[simplistic]
If solicitors etc din't get paid if they lost a case, wouldn't the world be a better place?
[/simplistic]

Equally simplistic - then anything that was not a dead cert would never be taken on, denying access to justice to a vast majority in a system where winning / losing depends on a balance of probability.

Why do you get paid so fucking much?

Cos I'm so fucking good.  A large percentage of the legal profession does not get paid as much as you would imagine.  Claimant Personal Injury lawyers for example have been to uni for 4yrs+, covered their own education costs, worked for a derisory sum for 2 years and still struggle to  bring in more than £30k, which if memory serves is the figure that the firemen were grumbling about not so long ago.  There's no union fighting their corner for them.

The obscene wages are largely limited to media and banking sectors.

If you do big piles of pro bono and legal aid work, you have my respect; otherwise...

At risk of personal bleating, I cannot do Pro Bono work because I am an in-house lawyer.  (We have to apply for specific waivers from conduct rules and cover indemnity insurance costs.)  I try to do my bit [by sticking my nose in where its not wanted] but should I really risk disciplinary action to gain your respect?

[Sherringford Hovis]

Excepting on-the-spot jobbies fines are means-tested so a bloke servicing his Merc outside his Kentish mews property would suffer more than your example.

Oh yes. I read that article in Harpers about how to squeeze the best performance/economy ratio out of your Naziwaggon's engine management system without rechipping. All the rich people are working on their own cars these days.
That's often a problem with people attracted to the legal profession: they're so intent on winning their argument; they can't see that the argument itself is nonsense.

If they were not subsidised the work and the skill-base would go elsewhere.

So the British taxpayer should pay for the privilege of polluting its own shores? Great. And we're denying those kids in India jobs – they manage to take ships apart without any skills or training whatsoever; and few tools. We have much to learn from so-called 'emergent' economies, it's clear.

Your solicitor stopped you from being at a disadvantage against the insurer's solicitor.  Would your dad have won if he'd pursued the claim himself?

Would my Dad have needed to put the family home at risk by borrowing against it if a solicitor acting for the insurance company hadn't caused all the problems in the first place?

Why should an insurer indemnify someone without a corresponding right to conduct a proper defence of the case without being hampered by admissions?

The only 'defence' in the case should be determining whether the guy knocked me down deliberately or not. The fact that I was squashed in front of four witnesses should have made things easier, not more difficult.

Equally simplistic - then anything that was not a dead cert would never be taken on, denying access to justice to a vast majority in a system where winning / losing depends on a balance of probability.

Would you pay an estate agent who failed to sell your house? Surely 'balance of probability' means that it's all pretty much a roll of the dice anyway: where's the justice in that?

A large percentage of the legal profession does not get paid as much as you would imagine.  Claimant Personal Injury lawyers for example have been to uni for 4yrs+, covered their own education costs, worked for a derisory sum for 2 years and still struggle to  bring in more than £30k, which if memory serves is the figure that the firemen were grumbling about not so long ago.  There's no union fighting their corner for them.

So why does the cheapest solicitor round my way charge £100 per hour?
If the law is such an expensive process, why aren't solicitors doing anything to make it cheaper and more easily understandable by ordinary people? Because it's not in their interest.
If solicitors are as poorly paid as you claim, I don't want people acting on my behalf that can neither negotiate themselves a decent salary nor manage their business expenses.
In a country where over 70% of the population earn less than the 'average' wage of £22400pa (2001 figures), your pleas for alms fall on deaf and unsympathetic ears.
Unions are shit – I've actually been sacked for union activities and recruitment (dressed up by my employer as something else, of course), and there was nothing the union could do. The unions have been pointless since the miners' strike – what good have they done for the nurses and firemen recently?
It takes four years to get a nursing degree too, despite the lies in the media, they'll still start on £13.5k in many places, and still earn less than £20K after five years' experience.

At risk of personal bleating, I cannot do Pro Bono work because I am an in-house lawyer.  (We have to apply for specific waivers from conduct rules and cover indemnity insurance costs.)  I try to do my bit [by sticking my nose in where its not wanted] but should I really risk disciplinary action to gain your respect?

Yes, you should. Respect is earned, not gained – you signed your employment contract, and with it your last shred of human decency, as your sole duty  is now to defend the company against everything: even your own conscience.
You could maybe redress the cheap sacrifice of your morals with a waiver and some insurance for your own work though. Every time I publish a story I've written or edited in a magazine or newspaper, I put my livelihood on the line. I've lost jobs on points of principle before too, so I know how hard it is.

[Uncle_Z]

Sorry about this folks, I'm sure normal service will be resumed after another three or four rounds.

the argument itself is nonsense.

My example however flippant does not remove the fact that the fine would be means tested.  In your example someone with (I presume) little money would be most unlikely to face the maximum fine without gross and repeated offences.

So the British taxpayer should pay for the privilege of polluting its own shores?

You're right.  We should just sink the ships in international waters and hope nothing bad happens.

Would my Dad have needed to put the family home at risk by borrowing against it if a solicitor acting for the insurance company hadn't caused all the problems in the first place?

You asked what the solicitor did to earn his money.  The answer: something that you could not have done without him.  Your question ignores the bit about me criticising the underlying issue.  Other european jurisdictions cope admirably with strict liability in RTAs.  It puts up the cost of everyone's insurance by a tiny fraction and that is all.  In its favour it reduces the time expense and pain of proceedings.

The only 'defence' in the case should be

Perhaps it should be, but it isn't.

determining whether the guy knocked me down deliberately or not. The fact that I was squashed in front of four witnesses should have made things easier, not more difficult.

What if it was your fault (entirely or partly) or the fault of another driver who caused the other driver to swerve?  What if the driver had made an admission of liability out of that delicious human frailty guilt?  The specific facts of your case certainly suggest that liability should not have been disputed, but how can you put a blanket denial on the window of opportunity to defend?

Surely 'balance of probability' means that it's all pretty much a roll of the dice anyway: where's the justice in that?

When the alternative is "beyond reasonable doubt" the justice comes in the form of a 49.9% swing in favour of the claimant.

So why does the cheapest solicitor round my way charge £100 per hour?

They may charge it, they do not take it home.  Some of it goes in overheads (beyond the obvious there is £1000+ / year per practising certificate.  £X00,000 professional indemnity insurance, approx £2000 /person / year in continuing professional development).  Some of course goes as profits to the partners.

If the law is such an expensive process, why aren't solicitors doing anything to make it cheaper and more easily understandable by ordinary people?

We are.  There is a massive drive towards plain english.  Modern statutes are far easier to read than those going onto the books even 20 years ago.  Small claims court proceedings are designed to take place without lawyers present.  We cannot just wave a magic wand and make 500 years of history disappear though.

If solicitors are as poorly paid as you claim, I don't want people acting on my behalf that can neither negotiate themselves a decent salary nor manage their business expenses.

How does that balance against your wish to pay less than £100/hour?  If you want "better" you can use a partner or a big city firm and pay £200+ / hour.

In a country where over 70% of the population earn less than the 'average' wage of £22400pa (2001 figures), your pleas for alms fall on deaf and unsympathetic ears.

How many of the remainder earn just "more than average"?  That's all £30,000 (unadjusted) is.  For a career professional of any kind I do not see how "more than average" is an excessive demand.  You do not have to be much "above average" salary to hit higher rate tax, yet a single person on this salary cannot afford to buy an "average house".  If they manage somehow they then have to pay £1500 stamp duty.  Show me the bit of paper that puts a higher tax bracket for the £100k crew, redirecting the extra revenue to giving "above average" standard of living to essential services and I will support it.

your sole duty is now to defend the company against everything: even your own conscience.

No it's not.

1.01 Practice rule 1 (basic principles)
A solicitor shall not do anything in the course of practising as a solicitor, or permit another person to do anything on his or her behalf, which compromises or impairs or is likely to compromise or impair any of the following:
(a) the solicitor's independence or integrity;
(b) a person's freedom to instruct a solicitor of his or her choice;
(c) the solicitor's duty to act in the best interests of the client;
(d) the good repute of the solicitor or of the solicitor's profession;
(e) the solicitor's proper standard of work;
(f) the solicitor's duty to the Court.
Solicitors' Practice Rules 1990, rule 1

You could maybe redress the cheap sacrifice of your morals with a waiver and some insurance for your own work though

The waiver is not within my power – it is down to the board of directors and to the law society.  (yes yes "just doing my job guvnor").  At further risk of "alms for the impecunious" quips, I simply cannot afford professional indemnity insurance.  

Every time I publish a story I've written or edited in a magazine or newspaper, I put my livelihood on the line. I've lost jobs on points of principle before too, so I know how hard it is.

For this I applaud you (genuinely, and in spite of the "human decency" jibe).  Would you like to share any examples?  My professional ethics have been put to the test in limited ways and I have upheld them without question.  My personal morals have suffered a couple of times in that I have "had to do" unpalatable things – such as making companies insolvent or people redundant.  Those are matters for me  me and my occasional inability to sleep.  Thankfully none of my employers have tried to sacrifice "what is right" in order to boost margins.  Would like to think I will have the courage to do the right thing if it ever happens.