Rocket Man Arrives

We have just opened a shop at the Rocket, one of the busiest junctions in Liverpool and in doing so created both Rocket Claims, which we will use as a trading style, and Rocket Man our very own superhero, fighting injustice everywhere!

Rocket Man is constantly battling against local bad guys Boy Racer, Bad Boss and the Slipper Tripper.

Rocket Man fights the Bad Guys daily and gets compensation for the innocent victims!

Bad Boss cuts corners at his premises in order to save money and the end result is that employees get hurt!

Boy Racer causes lots of accidents with his erratic driving. He shouldn't be allowed on the roads!

Follow Rocket Man as he battles injustices caused by these baddies daily. You never know, one day you might need to call Rocket Man to get the justice you deserve!

Coalition Government Cutbacks affect Access to Justice

As is usual in the world of compensation claims, there is always some review or another ongoing, some change in how to save money here, add money there, regulatory changes or whatever it was flavour of the month.

Since the Woolf reforms and the Access to Justice Act in 1999, satellite litigation has been a constant companion as Insurance Companies railed against what they percieved to be the costs gravy train that claimant lawyers were enjoying.

In a nutshell, the Access to Justice Act introduced "No Win No Fee" in the public vernacular and the so called compensation culture was born. Except for one important fact: There is no compensation culture. Every study into the subject has found the same thing - there is not a compensation culture, just a perception of one driven by elements of the media and stakeholders.

Whilst there was a Labour Government, Access to Justice was enshrined as a constant tenet of thier rule. Now that the coalition government is in place, Access to Justice is getting thrown out with all the other bathwater and the emphasis on the costs of making a compensation claim are now shifting from the nominal negligent party to the nominal claimant party, in other words big business (for Bankers substitute Insurance Companies) is getting the full support of the coalition Government at the expense of the man on the street.

In place of  "No Win No Fee" we will now have "Qualified One Party Costs Shifting". In place of having your costs paid by the negligent party, we will now have claimants paying anything upto 25% of thier compensation award for thier own legal fees.

(I'm sorry, I realise that the phrase "Qualified One Party Costs Shifting" is a highly technical and probably confusing phrase, but if I attempt to explain it to you, I'll also have to explain the indemnity principle, contingency fees and most vague of all conspicuous wealth!).

In simple terms, if an individual wants to make a claim today, they will likely be able to do so on a completely cost free basis, in other words they will not have to pay anything to make a claim. Their lawyer will likely work on a "No Win No Fee" basis and provide an Insurance guarantee to ensure if the claim fails, then the claimant will not pay the winning sides costs.

In any reasonable society, this should be ensrined in law. With no Legal Aid provision anybody who needs to make a compensation claim should be free to do so, without fear that if thier claim is lost they will be financially ruined.

If this important aspect of Access to Justice is removed their will only be one winner: Big Business in the form of Insurance Companies.

The average man on the street will be terrified of bringing a claim for fear of failure.

With the changes propsed by the Government from the Jackson report driving ahead full steam, very soon the cost of making a perfectly reasonable compensation claim will be prohibitive. Never mind the costs being prohibitive, what about the law itself? "Qualifed One Party Costs Shifting" and "Contingency Fees" are enough to make my head spin and I've been in the game for years!

The bottom line is this: The Coalition Government is going to force through a set of changes that will materially affect the man on the street, whilst boosting the profits of Big Business (Where have we heard that before?). Insurance Companeis will reap the benefit and have already confirmed that this will be unlikely to lead to cheaper Insurance premiums, rather bigger dividends for shareholders.

The Insurance lobby in the corridors of pwoer have been banging on about the compensation culture, fraud claims and gravy trains for years, but now they have receptive ears for thier spin and it's the general public who will suffer the consequences.

Compensation Culture? No such thing!
Fraudulent Insurance Claims? 0.007% of all claims made
Costs Gravy Train? The 3rd new downward costs scheme is still in development as we speak!
Insurance Premiums: GOING UP!

Let's face it, the Coalition Government is already destroying the fabric of society with their so called austerity measures, so removing Access to Justice for the poorest in society as well as the so called MINELA factor will not rate much in the face of Policing cuts, public sector job lossses, VAT rises and the impending and dreaded interest rate rises.

As the old sticker and poster campaign of the 1980's said "Dont Blame Me, I Voted Labour!"

Live Chat on our website

We have added this great feature to our website now, so if anyone wants some quick advice or even to report a claim to us, your now able to do so without having to even pick up a telephone.

To use this feature, simply go to our website at www.evolutionlegal.com and click the live chat icon. One of our staff will be happy to help you.

Official Legal Partner of Plymouth Argyle FC

We are delighted to announce our agreement to provide an Offiicial Legal Club to the supportes of PlymouthArgyle FC, who become the 2nd professional football club to partner with us, along with Swansea City AFC.

Here is the press release:

Evolution Legal, the Liverpool based legal services provider has signed a deal to provide legal services to the supporters of Plymouth Argyle FC.

The deal sees Evolution Legal, who in 2008 won the title “Claims Management Company of the Year” create a legal club for the supporters of the Green Army (of TV advert fame!) which is officially backed by the club itself and free for fans to join.

The Argyle Legal Club will offer fans advice and assistance on a range of legal issues and follows hot on the footsteps of the deal Evolution struck with Swansea City AFC to create SwansLegal for their supporters.

The company is also well on the way to completing a deal with another major Championship club as well.

Managing Director Paul Manning said “We always try to be innovative and this is crucial in an over populated sector such as Legal Services. We looked at lots of affinity markets and our research showed that brand affinity in football was amongst the most loyal in the UK.

Our branded legal club fits perfectly with any sporting club, providing free membership benefits to reward the loyalty of supporters, but crucially driving affinity revenue back into the sports club and away from the High Street and Internet.

Football supporters of all clubs deserve to have their loyalty rewarded and our Legal Club certainly provides lots of benefits and best of all membership is free.

Argyle Commercial Manager Andy Budge said “This is a great new opportunity for our supporters to become members of the Argyle legal club in association with Evolution Legal Services.

By using the Argyle Legal Club for legal support, the Green Army will also be helping raise money to help fund our youth development programme.

By just picking up the phone our supporters could be saving themselves money while also helping the club develop crucial issues such our youth development programme.”

A Nice Gesture from our recent competition winner

John Kenny won tickets with us last year to see a concert at Wembley Stadium but for whatever reason was unable to attend. He asked us to transfer his prize which we were happy to do and John chose to take his grandson to see England v Mexico on Monday night.

Below is John's e-mail to us on Tuesday, which we think was really nice of him to take the time to write to us and thansk us for making his Grandson's day (they also included some photos as well):-

Here is Connor meeting President Campeoni of the Mexican FA.

Hi Paul,
I have just arrived back from our trip . We are tired but I will not wait to write this thank you email and tell you how wonderful it was. It was an amazing trip. I was able to show Connor around London during the day and we struck lucky with meeting up with the Mexico team.
The seats for the match are incredible. A great view, and fantastic facilities. It was a great atmosphere. We felt like and were treated like Vips and it is all thanks to Evolution Legal and you, Paul.
I hope , one day, to meet you and buy you a pint. You have no idea how much it has meant to me and it really is an unforgettable opportunity. There are some special times in life and this was one of them.

You are welcome to use the attached photographs and i send any permissions required. Unfortunately, I only made it into one of them and that was on a visit to Stamford Bridge, where Connor got to see and touch the Premiership and Fa cup trophies. One is of Connor with the Mexico goalkeeper Oscar Perez and  you will see one of him with Justino Campean, the President of the Mexico FA, shortly after the match.

My most heartfelt thank you for allowing me the privilege of the tickets.
Kind Regards
John

Banning Referral Fees for Personal Injury Claims - Will Insurance Brokers be Hit Hardest?

When LJ Jackson sat down to re-write the future of legal services, top of his list seemed to be the banning of referral fees and from all around it was 3 cheers for Jackson. Well hang on LJ you and your gang are just plain wrong.

Do you remember as far back as 1999 and the newly written Access to Justice Act? If you can you will recall that referral fees were banned at that point. Hence convoluted business models (translation: back door referral fees), the rise of Claims Direct and The Accident Group, severe malpractice (lawsuits still ongoing?) and grossly inflated ATE premiums - all of which led to satellite litigation, technical challenges and an industry meltdown.

In 2004 sanity prevailed and there was a change to the Solicitors referral code, allowing referral fees to be paid if handled in a transparent manner and this resulted in the most stable period that the personal injury sector has enjoyed for a long time and increased access to justice for the man in the street.
This, coupled with the regulation of Accident Management Companies resulted in a significant watershed in the personal injury market.

If referral fees are banned once again, we will undoubtedly see the return of back door payments, malpractice, legal challenges, back to the instability the market endured around the start of the Century.
The future threatened is completely out of kilter with the modern commercial world and is effectively one of legislation against market forces.

With the millions and millions of pounds spent by CMC's and Solicitors on advertising, the public are more aware than ever of their rights and of the availability of access to justice. Jackson believes his changes are about access to justice, but he has monumentally failed to understand the market, apparently looking upon CMC's as some sort of "parasitical leach" and let's face it, who cares what happens to them?
In practice, referral fees paid by Solicitors to CMC's merely form part of a marketing budget that the Solicitor would no doubt have spent on some other sort of marketing drive, such as advertising, but has chosen to spend the money with a CMC as there is a some form of a guaranteed result - so who's decision is it to spend the marketing budget with an advertising agency or with a CMC?

So what is a referral fee? Certain people seem to use the term to imply some sort of dishonesty, but of course only when discussing those dastardly CMC's!

It is also perplexing that the legal snobocracy fail to realise that the year is 2010 and that Solicitors are business people and are not following some kind of vocation. Operating a law firm on the basis that the public will find you through membership in MASS or APIL or by walking into your office on the High Street will result in failure, and the clever law firms know this. But also please note: No-one is holding a gun to the head of the poor Solicitor, being bullied by the awful CMC. They choose to pay a CMC because it is usually the most effective use of the marketing buck.

Furthermore, why is it that CMC's are the parasites, but Solicitors are perceived as "seekers of truth and justice"? The marketing model for acquiring new clients is broadly the same yet Conservative Shadow Justice Minister Henry Bellingham, recently commented that if the Tories got into power, they now don't want to ban referral fees (as they previously stated they would) as it is not a very capitalist thing to do, but in any event they didn't want to ban them for those jolly good Solicitors, just for those awful, ambulance chasing CMC's!!!!! Cheers Henry, there's nothing like a free market economy to ensure a level playing field is there?
When the claims management market was regulated in 2004, advertising for clients in hospitals was mostly abandoned by CMC's, only to be replaced at the speed of sound by Solicitors. Who are the ambulance chasers again?

The snobocracy also appears closer to home. I was recently having a few beers with some chaps from a law firm to whom we refer work to (I wont name names although I should!). Now this firm has conservatively had 500 Personal injury referrals from us in about 2 years and yes they pay us a fairly standard referral fee on a per case basis. It was all very convivial until the 3rd or 4th pint was downed, when the sneering dismissiveness began.

"All you do is fill a form in and send it on to us" "We do all the work" "All you do is sell claims on"
I was shocked to be honest.

Not because these people seemed ignorant of how much work and marketing spend goes into to securing a contract with an Insurance Broker for example, so that the phone rings and there is a client on the other end needing assistance after an accident. I already knew these were effectively house cats, sitting behind their desk being fed a steady diet of new clients each day, not knowing or caring how that new client magically appeared in front of them.

But the level of malevolence in which their diatribe was delivered took me by surprise. These "Solicitors" (they aren't actually qualified) were more than happy to go and secure their pay rises on the back of bringing a commercial relationship to the Partners, happy to earn their bonuses on recovered legal costs, but actually they resent us as well.

But what does this all mean for those outfits at the other end of the referral process, especially Insurance Brokers?

Are they going to lose their valuable revenue stream of referral fees from their clients who have had non-fault accidents? If so does anyone care if this sends a few of them out of business?

Well yes we care! CMC's and Insurance Brokers have a good understanding of what is required for the person who was actually involved in a non-fault accident needs, the actual brass tacks of sitting on the side of the road with a car you cant drive and 2 screaming kids in the back.

The Broker understands because that's his client and he wants them to renew their policy with them next year, so he wants the client to have an A1 level of service, after all claims are the shop window of the Insurance process. The CMC understands because he wants the Broker to refer more clients to them, so who benefits? The client sat on the side of the road with 2 screaming kids that's who!

At this point the Broker probably isn't thinking about commissions or referrals, just the service that the client gets and there is the crux of the matter. For all the talk about referral fees being banned, yes some CMC's will probably go to the wall and maybe even a few insurance brokers as well, but the real victims will be the policyholders who will have any choice removed from their decision making process and be left with a massive call centre to talk to and try and sort out a problem.

Is the UK heading for US style litigation?

With the news that Lord Justice Jackson’s recommendations for small value road traffic accident injury claims are going to be implemented in England & Wales on the 30th April 2010, questions must be asked as to whether his recommendations are driving UK road users further down the path of US litigation methods.

Until 2001, if you had been injured in a road traffic accident (RTA) you simply made arrangements with a Solicitor to obtain compensation on your behalf. The question of costs was very rarely mentioned as it was an unspoken truth that the Solicitors expected to recover their costs in full from the negligent driver’s insurance company.

When Lord Woolf reformed the framework surrounding compensation claims in 2001, the system of No Win No Fee (NWNF) was introduced, which in theory allowed claimants to bring claims without the fear of accumulating large legal costs bills if they lost the claim, thus providing access to justice to individuals who previously may have been put off from claiming.

This access to justice was protected by the issuing of what was known as After the Event Insurance (ATE), an insurance policy that guaranteed that the legal costs would be paid in the event of the claim not succeeding.
In legal circles this type of arrangement is governed by a Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA) which in layman’s terms basically means, that the lawyer agrees to take the clients case on, work for free for the duration of the claim, irrespective of the length of the case, before ultimately getting paid their costs on a fixed fee regime, with the possibility of achieving a success fee, if indeed the claim succeeded (therefore the fees are paid conditional upon success in the case!).

Quite were this system of accessing legal services and obtaining compensation came from is a bit of a mystery now in 2010, although I’m sure that at the time it made some sense. In any event the system was introduced and has been utilised for 9 years until now, albeit utilised in what can only be described as a battlefield, as claimant lawyers and insurance lawyers have knocked lumps out of each other arguing as to the rights and wrongs of the system.

This battle has raged for 9 years and has now led to a further change in the legal framework surrounding these claims, from Conditional Fee Agreements (CFA’s) to Contingency Fee Agreements (COFA’s).
In the newly proposed regime, the claimant will now have to commit to giving his lawyer a percentage of his recovered compensation to contribute towards the lawyers costs in the event of a successful claim.
So if £2000 is recovered on a 20% COFA, the lawyer will deduct £200 from the compensation award to contribute towards their costs of acting for the client. This process is widely used throughout the United States and has been for very many years.

It is a much simpler process for all parties concerned and one which the claimant will understand completely from day one, as opposed to the impossible task of trying to explain the ins and outs of a CFA.
Indeed in the writer’s experience, a significantly large percentage of claimants already expect that there will be a deduction from their compensation award, even though to do so has been un-legal for the past 9 years.
In creating this new framework Lord Justice Jackson has necessarily had to make some collateral changes such as scrapping the indemnity principle and introducing 1 party cost shifting, which in effect maintains the claimants ability to bring a claim without risk of costs, but crucially negates the need for ATE Insurance to be in place and thus provides a much needed costs saving to the ultimate paying party (the insurance company).
No doubt the media will scare up some headlines and roll out the usual extreme and absurd scare stories about daft claims being made, but the fact is that this new regime proposed by Jackson should make life simpler for all stakeholders.

The claimant will understand his legal obligations when making a claim.

The claimant’s lawyer will understand what they will be paid if successful (or not).

The insurance company have had a welcome shot in the arm from the loss of paying ATE premiums.

And the whole process in these low value RTA claims should be speeded up considerably.

So in answer to the headline question....yes the UK is going down the US route in RTA litigation and what a welcome relief that is!