2 Responses
Comments are closed.
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Join 16.8K other subscribers
Recent Posts
- MAZUR MATTERS : THE REVISED LAW SOCIETY GUIDANCE NOTE: SOME KEY POINTS: THIS WILL REQUIRE CLOSER OVERSIGHT OF THE WORK BEING DONE
- A REPORT IS RELEVANT TO THE ISSUES IN THE CASE BUT THE JUDGE WILL DETERMINE ALL KEY MATTERS THEMSELVES..
- THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT TO EXTEND TIME FOR SERVICE AS THE DEFENDANT ASSERTED: THE SCCO REFUSES TO SET ASIDE A DEFAULT COSTS CERTIFICATE
- MAZUR MATTERS 59: REMEMBER THAT MOST OF THIS AROSE BECAUSE SOMEONE DIDN’T KNOW (OR APPLY) THE CORRECT RULES AS TO FIXED COSTS
- COST BITES 376: THE NEED TO KEEP THE CLIENT INFORMED OF COSTS BEING INCURRED: THE SOLICITOR SHOULD HAVE INFORMED THE CLIENT THAT COSTS OF US $35,343,213.96 WERE BEING INCURRED
Top Posts
- MAZUR MATTERS 59: REMEMBER THAT MOST OF THIS AROSE BECAUSE SOMEONE DIDN'T KNOW (OR APPLY) THE CORRECT RULES AS TO FIXED COSTS
- THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT TO EXTEND TIME FOR SERVICE AS THE DEFENDANT ASSERTED: THE SCCO REFUSES TO SET ASIDE A DEFAULT COSTS CERTIFICATE
- BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: TIME LIMITS FOR CHALLENGING SOLICITORS' BILLS
- COST BITES 376: THE NEED TO KEEP THE CLIENT INFORMED OF COSTS BEING INCURRED: THE SOLICITOR SHOULD HAVE INFORMED THE CLIENT THAT COSTS OF US $35,343,213.96 WERE BEING INCURRED
- A REPORT IS RELEVANT TO THE ISSUES IN THE CASE BUT THE JUDGE WILL DETERMINE ALL KEY MATTERS THEMSELVES..
Archives
Blogroll
Books
Useful Links
Copyright
© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2026.
Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission is strictly prohibited.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
Hello Gordon, you’re referring to the old Code of Conduct (which was replaced by the BSB Handbook in January 2014) and also to an old guidance document. The current Handbook can be accessed at https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/regulatory-requirements/bsb-handbook/the-handbook-publication/ and the most recent document from the Bar Council Ethics Committee (revised 2016) on this topic is at http://www.barcouncil.org.uk/media/438420/witness_preparation.pdf and this. Other Bar Council Ethics Committee documents can be accessed at http://www.barcouncil.org.uk/practice-ethics/professional-practice-and-ethics/
Tim
Unfortunately, I suspect this is nothing like as rare as it should be, due to the pernicious effect of conditional fee agreements, where the solicitor has far too much financial interest in the outcome. This is particularly the case in the current climate.
I recently came across a case where the medical `evidence’ – the usual cut and paste rubbish from a 50 reports a day doctor – grossly exaggerated the symptoms. It should have been painfully obvious to the solicitor that this was the case, but they deliberately or negligently ignored it.
They then prepared a witness statement incorporating a cut and paste from the medical report, which repeated the exaggeration. Their client actually pointed it out, but was told that unless he signed it he would be done for fraud for having given false evidence to the doctor (he hadn’t) and would have to pay both the defendant’s costs and his own costs, estimated at around £30k.
The poor chap was terrified, but signed it, and now the defendants are taking it to trial on a fraud defence, and have said that if they succeed it’s their intention to apply for QOCS to be disapplied.
His solicitors then attempted (without consulting him) to discontinue but on a drop hands basis, so as to get themselves off the hook and to hell with the client’s (perfectly legitimate, though minor) claim. Needless to say, the insurers refused, and the solicitors then wrote to the client, blaming him and again saying that if he lost he’d have to pay all the costs.
He then came to see me, as I’d acted for him when I was practising. I sent a 4 page email to the firm pointing out the numerous and serious faults in their handling of the claim and saying that if they didn’t get him a result they would be in the firing line.
Although I never received a reply they are suddenly all sweetness and light, and have written to him saying he will definitely win and even if he doesn’t he won’t have to pay any costs.
This low level sector of the personal injury market is a cesspit of corruption, where the solicitors handling the claims are often the most corrupt of everyone involved, their snouts so far into the trough that they can no longer see anything other than a cheque at the end of the case.