Lawyers have rallied round to offer pro bono help to the people injured and bereaved by the bombings that tore through London’s transport system on 7 july, writes Lucy Trevelyan

Just one week after the 7 July terrorist bombs tore through London’s transport system, killing 53 and injuring scores more, the UK’s legal profession had a helpline up and running, offering crucial advice in the aftermath of this atrocity to victims and bereaved families.


Law firms – 43 to date – queued up to participate on a pro bono basis, and thus far 138 calls have been received and allocated to the volunteer firms. Although law firms from all over the country offered their services, by far the overwhelming majority came from London.


London-based Irwin Mitchell partner Colin Ettinger – whose firm is dealing with 15 cases arising from the helpline – says: ‘When the bombings happened, we were so close to it. Practically everyone knows someone who was involved, directly or indirectly, and we were in the heart of things. The feeling was very much: what can we do to help? We thought we could at least offer some legal assistance.


‘I can’t think of a time when law firms have teamed up to do anything like this on this sort of scale before. There has been a great response but this sort of outrage is fairly unique, at the moment anyway.’


Issues that have arisen include dealing with death certificates, probate and insurance matters, employment questions – including claims for death in service benefits – help with gaining access to bank accounts of deceased relatives and, in the majority of cases, assistance in preparing compensation claims from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA).


The system involved the Law Society’s practice advice team manning the hotline, taking details from enquirers and inputting them onto a Web-based database – first devised and used by the Solicitors Pro Bono Group (SPBG) to deal with calls from victims of the Boxing Day tsunami disaster. From this secure database, the volunteer firms could pick up the details and contact the callers and, if appropriate, take on the case.


The number of calls received by the helpline has dropped to one or two a week now, says Chris Holland, head of information services at the Law Society, but the lines will remain open for the time being.


SPBG chairman Paul Newdick, a partner at City firm Clyde & Co, says the service the volunteer law firms have provided has been essential.


He says: ‘After something like this, people are confused about what they need to do, apart from dealing with the emotional trauma. To have someone who knows what they are talking about to steer and guide them through what they need to do can give huge comfort and reassurance.’


He says he was pleased but not surprised at the number of law firms which offered to help. ‘When something like this happens, it brings out the best in everybody – including lawyers, I’m happy to say.’


For the six members of the Law Society’s practice advice team charged with taking the initial calls from victims, this represented a radical departure from their usual work, says Mr Holland,.


He says: ‘Their day-to-day work involves advising practitioners who want advice on practice and procedures. Dealing with victims and their families – people who were obviously grieving – was very different. Our work is not usually so emotive and it was quite upsetting at times. However, they are all professional solicitors who are used to dealing with people in difficult circumstances.’


Mr Ettinger says: ‘Most of the people we spoke to were just totally bewildered. We had parents who had lost their son, a young man who was making his way in the world. They were enjoying bringing up a person, then suddenly they find that person is no longer there because of a terrorist outrage. They were in a complete state of shock. Others had been terribly injured and were trying to come to terms with what happened to them and trying to get on with their lives.’


Generally speaking, he says, the people his firm has helped – and in many cases are still helping since these sorts of cases can take longer than others as the long-term effects of some injuries cannot be immediately ascertained – have been very grateful.


Mr Ettinger adds that although his firm’s lawyers are used to dealing with horror stories culminating in CICA claims, what has been very different in the aftermath of the London bombings has been the positive media attention received.


He says: ‘I had a year as president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) and we were always on the defensive with people going on about the so-called compensation culture. This has made a refreshing change.’


However, some claim farmers have elicited a furious response for offering, via their Web sites, to help secure compensation for the victims – in exchange for a big cut of the cash obtained.


Mr Ettinger says: ‘I think this is terrible. I suppose to some extent people are entitled to say they will charge. However, claims handlers aren’t regulated and you don’t know what expertise you’re going to get. Contingency fees are hard to come to terms with – people should pay according to the work done. It’s unfair that they might get a third of the money if they only write two letters, for example.’


CICA has also received widespread condemnation in the media about the length of time it has taken to start providing compensation payments. However, Mr Newdick counters that CICA has actually acted very quickly and efficiently in dealing with the bombing victims’ claims.


‘The government has certainly given this priority. Claims can ordinarily take six months even to be acknowledged and it can take several years for the claims to be settled. People make out that things have been moving slowly but in a legal sense, it’s going quite quickly.’


Concerns remain, however, about the maximum levels of compensation available to victims. Personal injury lawyers this week sought a meeting with the government to call for a complete overhaul of the scheme.


APIL president Allan Gore QC says: ‘We are obviously pleased that the government has acknowledged the need to compensate victims of the London bombings so quickly, but this still leaves thousands of other crime victims who have been waiting for years to receive their compensation – these people must not be pushed into a corner.’


The scheme, which was introduced in 1996, is inflexible and unfair, says Mr Gore, and out of line with compensation awarded through the civil courts.


‘Before the scheme was set up, someone who suffered a brain injury because of a violent crime could expect to receive around £2 million in compensation. Yet today, someone who suffers exactly the same injury, in exactly the same circumstances, will be awarded only a quarter of that amount through the criminal injuries scheme.’



APIL wants the scheme’s tariff bands to be assessed annually so awards are kept in line with inflation. It also wants the £500,000 ‘maximum cap’ on payments abolished.


Yasmin Waljee, pro bono manager at City firm Lovells, says she is concerned that any changes which emerge following the government’s current review of the CICA may not benefit those London bombing victims who have already submitted their applications.


She says: ‘The changes which have been reported in the press as being considered include an increase in the overall cap. This uncertainty is not helpful for the clients who are already trying to adjust to difficult circumstances.


‘We are also trying to support those British victims of the terrorist attacks in Egypt which happened just two weeks after London. These families receive no compensation yet have suffered the same tragic consequences. We are aware that schemes exist in both France and Italy to compensate their nationals who are victims of terrorism abroad. The prime minister did announce a possible review but there is no certainty about that proposal. Again this is very distressing for the families.’


Mr Newdick says he hopes the lawyers’ experience with pro bono work will encourage them to carry out more such work in the future.


He adds: ‘We are not a reform organisation. We are looking to get as many lawyers as possible to assist where needed. If as a by-product the law improves, that’s fantastic.’


Lucy Trevelyan is a freelance journalist