Dear Mr
Clarke,
I wanted to
write to you and express my dismay at your comments in the press this week:-
“What we have marching towards us is an army of lawyers advancing behind
a line of women and children saying, of course, they're not concerned about the
income of the profession, they're only concern is these vulnerable clients who
would be adversely affected if they're not paid at the rate they currently
are".
I was
deeply offended by what you said.
I am one of
your “lawyers advancing…………..” and am against your proposals for removal of
legal aid for clinical negligence claimants and even more so against the idea
of taking up to 25% of a Claimants damages for a success fee. I have never been
in this game for money. I have always
carried out this job so that I can help accident victims. That is my first
priority and always has been. I have a real passion for helping accident
victims.
Only this morning I spent 2 hours with an 18 year old and her mother talking
about her child abuse possible claim which will be “free time” for which I will
recover nothing. This is not unusual as it happens most weeks, providing
free advice to potential clients. I help at the CAB too. Last week I was in the
High Court with John Foy QC settling a £9m plus RTA claim for a young lady who
was knocked down by a car in 1996. Liability was only resolved in the Court of
Appeal and the Defendants only came up with an offer acceptable (approximately
£500,000 more than their previous offer) 2 days before trial (we were listed
for 7 days about which see below). This was one of the last legal aid cases for
personal injury, possibly in the country I would imagine. We needed to
provide the Claimant with enough by way of income from her lump sum (and
Periodical Payments Order) for her care regime for the rest of her life. How
could I ever have taken away any of her damages for a success fee? How
could my practice (or indeed any other) run that case (with a legal bill of
over £1m) now?
Whilst
talking about this case you may be interested to know 2 other points of
interest. Firstly the discount rate currently set at 2.5% is going to mean that
it will be a real struggle to bring in sufficient funds to pay for all her
outgoings let alone taking some of her damages for losses. If it were not for
her loving parents putting their lives on hold to care for her then she would
really struggle. All because of someone else’s negligence and you want to deny
people like her access to justice, Justice Secretary!
Finally the
same case had leading counsel for both sides (plus a junior) and 4 leading
experts in their field yet the court would not provide a fixture for the
hearing, notwithstanding a joint application from the parties to do so. Hence
we had experts (and counsel/clients/witnesses) all waiting on the whim of a court
listing, which had still not come through 2 days before. I would estimate that
this will have cost at least an extra £20,000, payable by the Defendant, onto
the costs which would not have been incurred if the experts could have been
given a fixture and booked other work in when they knew they would not be
required.
I am not
alone in these sentiments.
On my wall
is a commitment to accident victims which tells them I will put their interests
first and I do, with pride.
I thought
you should know that there are in fact a great many people with similar
sentiments to me. I would hazard to guess the wider public, if properly
informed would actually be horrified at your plans.
If you
would like to respond or discuss matters with me then please feel free to.
Yours
sincerely,
Simon
Bransby F Inst L Ex
Morgan Jones and Pett are solicitors who provide legal advice and services to clients based in England and Wales and who can be contacted on 01603877000 or via email at davidpett@m-j-p.co.uk
