Now that the personal injury panel has been successfully launched it is time for us to take a further look at it in all its aspects.
First and foremost it must be viewed as a service to the public.
Secondly, it must be seen to be fair within the profession and, lastly, convenient in the mechanics of its operation.It is clear from my first article, 'Drawing the line', published in [1993] Gazette, 13 October, 29, that the objective of the personal injury panel is to direct the public to personal injury solicitors who can demonstrate an acceptable minimum of experience and expertise.To date we have considered 2600 applications and we have created a panel of nearly 2000 solicitors.
Not only do we have a substantial panel of solicitors but there is a good geographical spread across England and Wales.
Furthermore there are both sole practitioners and solicitors from large PI firms and although the vast majority represent plaintiffs there are some who primarily represent defendants.Since the launch of accident line 28,678 cases had been referred to panel members by the end of May 1995.
The Society can be justly proud of the service which they have initiated, first at being able to refer the public to an appropriate and convenient solicitor, and second being able to do so with some confidence as to their expertise.The links which are being created between the panel, accident line, conditional fees and accident line protect, all add weight to the esteem of the panel and the confidence there is in its members.So far as the profession is concerned there is a general view, by those who gained admission, that the line which has been drawn is far too low.
On the other hand, those who are refused or deferred believe that the criteria are far too high and some believe that they are unfair.
Some even say that they are unattainable.
These contrary views are obviously to be expected, but fairness is the order of the day, and this review has taken place to ensure that no-one is deterred from applying for admission to the panel (or re-applying).
One criterion which has been considered closely is the need to have carried out, or directly supervised, at least ten cases which have been set down for trial and of which at least two must have involved dispute over liability.The fact that this criterion is met does not of itself ensure that there will be admission to the panel, since there is an overview to be taken on the cumulative assessment of all ten key issues.
Conversely, failure to meet the criterion is not necessarily a bar.
The ten key issues are:1.
the system for supervising applicants and reviewing and monitoring cases;2.
the approach to client care and follow up;3.
the selection and instruction of counsel, doctors and other experts;4.
the availability and use of specialised reference materials, libraries, publications etc;5.
training;6.
the cost effectiveness of dealing with claims;7.
the approach to and the method of assessing quantum;8.
the collecting of evidence, the identification of issues and assessing prospects of success;9.
the scope of the applicant's experience;10.
the expeditious pursuit of cases and the readiness to go to trial if need be.The rules clearly state that where the various criteria cannot be met the assessors should, and the assessors do, look for alternative but equal experience.
It is felt, by the assessors, that the level they seek is already of a threshold, rather than an elitist standard, and that no purpose would be served by adjusting this or any of the other criteria.
Such a change would not materially alter their overall assessment of an applicant but might easily be seen, by the public, as diluting the standards which are at present on offer.
In fact, a sample has suggested that only about 16% of applicants who are refused panel membership fail on this criterion alone, after looking for alternative relevant skills.To assist in this respect some changes to the questionnaire have been prepared.
It would now be quite clear to everyone that the ten cases 'set down' can be set down at any time during a solicitor's practising career to qualify on the numerical criterion.
Clearly the more contemporaneous the experience the more weight the assessor can give to it in the overall assessment.The questionnaire has also been extended to invite applicants to give specific information on 'other relevant experience', which may be considered where some criteria cannot be met.
The opportunity to provide such information has always been available but sometimes it has not been used initially or until submissions are made on an appeal.
It is now felt that this opportunity will persuade applicants to pray in aid other experience from the outset.Clearly Lord Woolf's fast track ideas, ord 17, r.11 and court timetables will result in many more cases being 'set down'.
It is anticipated that this present difficulty will shortly become of little major concern to the profession.Another problem which recurs is the need for a monitoring system.
The main purpose of this is to ensure that cases are progressed and it is not primarily a test of the solicitor's overall ability.
The personal injury monitoring system looks to see that cases are regularly considered according to an acceptable timetable and criteria as laid down by the firm and the applicant.
Those cases which fall short of the standard set should be considered by someone with the necessary knowledge and experience to ascertain why the minimum standards have not been achieved.The monitoring system must ensure that the mileposts of negotiation and litigation are reached at the appropriate time and are then dealt with.
It is not a system of second guessing the solicitor who is handling the case and many sole practitioners can make arrangements with other solicitors, visiting locums and experienced legal executives to put in place a monitoring system which is suitable, and which may be enhanced by the use of diaries and IT systems.Further changes have been made to the questionnaire by altering the questions concerning the profile of the three cases which are reviewed.
These cases need to be claims which have been litigated but the opportunity is now given for the applicant to explain in outline the nature and facts of the cases which are relevant, and should be known, when considering the profile.There is absolutely no doubt that the panel is improving standards as was anticipated in my first article.
Many solicitors have responded positively to the observations which have been made and explained to them.
After a short deferral on re-application I am pleased to report that they have been admitted to the panel.
It is appropriate that the number of people on the panel should increase by solicitors reaching higher standards rather than by an acceptance of a lowering of the standards, to the detriment of the public we serve.I would like to make it clear that the assessors, who are all senior solicitors in this field, are only applying minimum standards.
They are happy to consider any experience which is not identified in the criteria but which is obviously relevant.
Indeed, the criteria already mention (in para 3.2) other civil litigation experience and cases set down other than personal injury cases.
Their marking is liberal and they have a wide discretion within the guidelines which have been laid down to ensure consistency.
Further, where there is a difference of opinion between assessors the applicants are always given the benefit of the doubt.The panel has been a major success, both as a service to the public and in identifying consistent standar ds within the profession.
It is hoped that these twin achievements will continue to be supported by the profession thereby allaying the historical criticism which were identified by a series of official enquiries and referred to in the previous article.
Finally, on the mechanics of re-application by current members of the panel when they fall due for reselection, work is being carried out with the objective that solicitors re-applying need only complete a modified questionnaire designed to ensure that the solicitor can still demonstrate the quality of experience and practice accepted by the original acceptance.
No comments yet