Medical litigation cases fall by 90%

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

habshi - 21 Jun 2007 10:57 GMT

    Clever thinking by Blair. All cases now have to be handled by
a panel who must show that they achieve more than 70% success rate
over two years.
    So these lawyers to stay on this lucrative panel, dont allow
any dubious cases to go forward. No win no fee is still available to
those who want to go ahead anyway.
    The same should apply to criminal cases and even civil
litigation even if private , let the lawyers have a big success rate
instead of taking on frivoulous vexacious cases.

Reply to this Message

The Todal - 21 Jun 2007 11:08 GMT

> Clever thinking by Blair. All cases now have to be handled by
> a panel who must show that they achieve more than 70% success rate
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> litigation even if private , let the lawyers have a big success rate
> instead of taking on frivoulous vexacious cases.

Do you have any URL to cite for this? For starters, it seems very unlikely
that Blair or the government would have any say on who goes on the panel.

Reply to this Message

Richard Miller - 21 Jun 2007 13:14 GMT

>> Clever thinking by Blair. All cases now have to be handled by
>> a panel who must show that they achieve more than 70% success rate
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>Do you have any URL to cite for this? For starters, it seems very unlikely
>that Blair or the government would have any say on who goes on the panel.

The LSC's rules state that only those on the panel may do publicly
funded clinical negligence cases. This restricted the number of firms
who could offer the service from several hundred to around 180.

The LSC is now talking about introducing a minimum success threshold
before firms would be allowed to take on such cases. It is not as high
as 70%, but self-censorship by firms to avoid losing their contract
would probably push it to that sort of level.

Signature

Richard Miller

Reply to this Message

The Todal - 21 Jun 2007 14:22 GMT

>>> Clever thinking by Blair. All cases now have to be handled by
>>> a panel who must show that they achieve more than 70% success rate
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> 70%, but self-censorship by firms to avoid losing their contract would
> probably push it to that sort of level.

Thanks for that.

It does not seem at all reasonable to judge a firm on the basis of
statistics. It would make more sense to audit those cases which fail, to see
whether they reveal any worrying errors of judgment. In the bad old days,
many cases (in my opinion) were pursued on legal aid far beyond the point
where the case should have been abandoned.

Reply to this Message

Andrew McGee - 21 Jun 2007 15:20 GMT

[large extract snipped}

> It does not seem at all reasonable to judge a firm on the basis of
> statistics. It would make more sense to audit those cases which fail, to
> see whether they reveal any worrying errors of judgment. In the bad old
> days, many cases (in my opinion) were pursued on legal aid far beyond the
> point where the case should have been abandoned.

I certainly agree with that - I saw very few worthy legal aid cases (and I
am talking about cases where I was for the assisted party). Often they
struck me as total nonsense.

Andrew McGee

Reply to this Message

Tommo - 21 Jun 2007 20:22 GMT

> [large extract snipped}
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Andrew McGee

Agreed.

As a separate matter, it is difficult to take OP seriously where his
beef appears to be that some Government conspiracy is preventing (and
I quote) "dubious" or "frivoulous vexacious cases" from being pursued
to trial.

Reply to this Message

Richard Miller - 21 Jun 2007 18:28 GMT

>> The LSC's rules state that only those on the panel may do publicly funded
>> clinical negligence cases. This restricted the number of firms who could
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>statistics. It would make more sense to audit those cases which fail, to see
>whether they reveal any worrying errors of judgment.

That has been my argument throughout. There is nothing wrong with
looking more closely at a firm with a higher than average loss rate, but
to act on the bare statistics is not acceptable.

>In the bad old days,
>many cases (in my opinion) were pursued on legal aid far beyond the point
>where the case should have been abandoned.

The LSC has put in so many checks and balances now that that is rare
these days.

Signature

Richard Miller

Reply to this Message

LYNN MALONE - 21 Jun 2007 21:57 GMT

http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page12023.asp

>>>> Clever thinking by Blair. All cases now have to be handled by
>>>> a panel who must show that they achieve more than 70% success rate
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> days, many cases (in my opinion) were pursued on legal aid far beyond the
> point where the case should have been abandoned.

Reply to this Message