Solicitors involved in the coal mining compensation scheme have suffered from an onslaught of media misreporting, argue Kevin Martin and Janet Paraskeva

The coal health compensation schemes are the biggest in UK legal history to result from a single action. More than £3 billion has been paid out to miners and their families. The final total could be as high as £7 billion. Designing and running a scheme on such a scale is an extremely difficult challenge. Quite rightly, there has been significant scrutiny of the actions of those involved, including solicitors.


Solicitors have played an integral role in securing the right to compensation for miners and their families. After pursuing successful High Court litigation, solicitors negotiated with the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) on behalf of claimants so that schemes for respiratory disease and vibration white finger could be established.


Throughout this process, the vast majority of the profession involved in the scheme has acted with integrity. There have been 752,000 claims for compensation. The Law Society’s Consumer Complaints Service has received only 1,000 complaints. Of those, 700 have already been dealt with, the majority to the satisfaction of the complainants as just 12 so far have been passed to the Legal Services Ombudsman. In parallel, the Law Society’s Regulation Directorate is investigating claims of misconduct.


The negative publicity surrounding the schemes has undoubtedly damaged the reputation of the profession. If any of the small number of solicitors being investigated are found to have acted improperly, it is right that they should be made subject to the appropriate disciplinary procedures.


However, it is important that recognition is given to the successes of the scheme. Solicitors have been able to secure financial recompense to miners and their families by dealing with complex litigation – involving relationships with unions, claims handlers and others – fairly and sensitively. Excellent work has been under-reported. And what has been reported has often been misrepresented.


The Law Society has been working hard to ensure that the issues around the scheme are properly understood and to tackle some of the difficulties that have arisen. We have had some success in this.


We have repeatedly stressed to the media, parliamentarians and others that no concerns have been raised about the vast majority of solicitors; that allegations of misconduct are allegations only, and that these claims are still being investigated. We have also stressed the individual and often very complex nature of each case. It is easy to make sweeping generalisations about how the cases have been handled, but, given the complexities, very damaging to do so. Unfortunately, some people have taken the opportunity to pursue a campaign against solicitors, unfairly raising the expectations of miners and their families and creating unnecessary problems for solicitors and firms.


In particular, there has been a refusal to accept the important distinction between the regulation of solicitors, which is a matter for the Law Society’s Regulation Board, and consumer redress, which the Consumer Complaints Service (now governed by the Consumer Complaints Board) has dedicated much time and effort to resolving. The right to redress for the consumer does not automatically mean that the solicitor has acted outside the rules of conduct. Dealing with regulatory issues at the same time as redress would also slow down the payment of any compensation, and the immediate concern is to put things right for the consumer. This does not mean that conduct issues are ignored, simply that they are dealt with separately rather than as part of the consumer redress process. The government’s White Paper on legal services reform continues the clear distinction between regulation and consumer redress, proposing a separate body to look after consumer complaints.


The coal health schemes became significantly more complex with the involvement of third parties, notably claims handlers and trade unions. The particular involvement of claims handlers confirms the importance of the Law Society’s campaign to have them regulated. We have regularly received letters over the last few years from concerned solicitors and members of the public in the mining areas about the activities of unregulated claims handlers. The government has responded to these concerns, and to those expressed in many other quarters, by introducing the Compensation Bill, which will provide a regulatory framework for claims handlers.


There are lessons to be learned from the way this complex scheme has evolved. For example, clarity and consistency of advice for solicitors on how to administer the scheme has been lacking. Much better forecasting is also required; the DTI significantly underestimated the number of claims and their cost.


Using our experience should enable future schemes to be remembered for the financial recompense they provide to victims and not for the logistical difficulties of delivery.


Kevin Martin and Janet Paraskeva are the Law Society President and chief executive respectively