Thompsons reprimanded over miners’ claims

miners-wheel.jpg
Thursday 21 October 2010 by James Dean

The chief executive of national trade union firm Thompsons has been reprimanded by the Solicitors Regulation Authority for the firm’s mishandling of sick coal miners’ government compensation claims.

In a regulatory settlement agreement signed on 30 September, Stephen Cavalier accepted a severe reprimand on behalf of five Thompsons partners, and the firm agreed to pay £88,000 in costs.

An SRA investigation found that five current and former partners – Michael Antoniw, Philip King, Anthony Patterson, Geoffrey Shears and Robert Wood – committed numerous breaches of the Solicitors Code of Conduct when handling miners’ claims under the coal health compensation scheme.

The SRA said that recourse to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal was not necessary because the firm had acted quickly to correct its mistakes.

Cavalier said today in a statement: ‘The agreement brings to an end over five years of investigation of Thompsons by the SRA. Thompsons and the mining unions played a crucial role in pursuing the test cases which led to the establishment of the scheme and the coal claims handling agreements. Despite achieving better results than any other firm, including the highest average damages for our clients, and believing at the time that our approach was consistent with professional standards, we have accepted that our advice in the early period of the claims was deficient. We took substantial steps to mitigate our conduct, but as current chief executive I have accepted responsibility on behalf of the firm for those deficiencies.’

The SRA noted in its decision that the involvement of some solicitors’ practices in miners compensation claims ‘has attracted widespread public concern and as a consequence has damaged public confidence in the legal profession’, but said that ‘the level and degree of misconduct varies between the firms as does the level of involvement of individual parties’.

Thompsons received case referrals from several miners’ unions and Newcastle firm Russell Young.

Under agreements between the unions and Thompsons’ miner clients, fees were deducted from miners’ compensation awards in the form of administration charges, and paid to the unions. These charges varied from a fixed fee of £50, to 7.5% of the first £13,333 of damages.

Thompsons’ Newcastle and Cardiff offices received approximately 23,500 miners case referrals from the unions. The firm deducted and paid to the unions administrative charges totalling £10.9m.

In 1998, Thompsons acquired 469 miners’ claims from Russell Young for approximately £37,500. Thompsons deducted and retained success fees from the damages received. Success fees were initially 10% of compensation up to a maximum of £2,000; and then subsequently, on a sliding scale of £50 for a settlement of £500 to £999, and up to £200 for a settlement over £3,000.

With regard to the union claims, Cavalier admitted that Thompsons failed to act in the best interests of its miner clients by failing until February 2005 to advise them that they were free to instruct solicitors of their own choice; by failing to advise them on the merits of paying the administration charges under potentially misleading agreements; and acting or continuing to act in conflict of their interests.

Cavalier also admitted that Thompsons accepted introductions and referrals in breach of solicitors’ rules, and failed until February 2005 to provide miner clients with adequate costs information, in particular about the effect of entering into the union agreements and the deduction of the administration charge from damages, and about alternative methods of funding the claim.

With regard to the Russell Young claims, Cavalier admitted that Thompsons failed to act in its miner clients’ best interests by charging success fees; charged contingency fees when such agreements were not permitted by law; and failed to provide clients with adequate costs information.

In mitigation, Cavalier said Thompsons had been ‘very proactive’ in addressing the criticisms made against the unions and the firm’s involvement in miners’ claims. Cavalier pointed to a number of initiatives Thompsons had undertaken, such as contacting clients and giving them further costs information; persuading one of the unions to make its administration charge voluntary for all outstanding claims or refund the charge on completed claims; mailing former clients under Legal Complaints Service guidance to offer repayment of deductions paid to the unions, which involved refunds totalling £3.6m on 6,304 claims; and voluntarily refunding success fees taken in the Russell Young cases.

The SRA’s decision was published on 18 October.

Comments

and still we permit referral

and still we permit referral fees!

Thompsons

This has nothing to do with referral fees, which are paid by the solicitors themselves.

This is to do with Thompsons failing to give proper costs advice, making unjustified deductions from the miners' own compensation and having a conflict of interests.

Miners' Claims

It isn't.

Oh yes it is! Thompsons are

Oh yes it is!

Thompsons are union solicitors and Beresfords weren't.

Go figure!

Thompsons and the miners

The simple fact is that Thompsons Beresfords and others stole from suffering or deceased miners how very moral - is it any wonder that solicitors are rightfully tarnished as legalised theives by a vast majority?

Pure money grubbers who

Pure money grubbers who present a fascade of the friend of the unions' "brothers"..

Thompsons

I seem to remember Tom Jones from Thompsons being quite vocal about firms such as Beresfords when they were under the spotlight. Anything to say now, Tom?

I'd also like to know from the SRA why this didn't go before the Tribunal. £3.6M is hardly loose change. Allowing them to enter into a regulatory settlement agreement smacks of a cop-out.

Somewhat more sinister than a

Somewhat more sinister than a cop-out, by the look of it.

Perhaps the SRA would care to enlighten us as to the difference? But probably not-they are not accountable to anyone.

Thompsons

Deals done behind closed doors?

THOMPSONS

These firms disgust me, they have made millions from the death of our family members and then pay out a measly few thousand for the families. Where have all the millions gone which should have gone to the families, Didnt BERESFORDS build a brand new building with the money?

Thompsons

No doubt a significant proportion of the monies paid to the unions will then have been donated to the Labour party. So the government of the day introduced a scheme to compensate miners using public funds which ended up subsidising their own political movement. The whole thing stinks worse than the polluted air that caused many of the problems for the miners in the first place. Conflicts of interest all over the place and these union firms pretend that they are there for the man in the street. Self-interest (party political wise) is all they are about. An utter disgrace.

Access to Justice

It is important that justice is given highest priority with any type of legal work, especially where there has been death due to negligence or perhaps even corporate/criminal liability. Therefore, charging success fees; charging contingency fees when such agreements were not permitted by law and failing to provide clients with adequate costs information is a serious breach. Instead, what should be happening more, as it is in 2010, is more widespread use of no win no fee where the client gets to keep 100% of the compensation. We're hearing more of it today advertised on TV but it will be an important business model for personal injury law firm work in 2011 and being upfront about costs or access to legal aid will always be significant.