Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

See Surrey v Barnet where the IM fee earner gave evidence at the assessment hearing that: “all "case handlers" were asked by partners in Irwin Mitchell to review their legally aided cases in light of the forthcoming changes being brought into effect by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.”
See also, AH v Lewisham where the IM fee earner gave evidence that the firm conducted a funding review in legal aid cases.
In Yesil, DJ Besford said, “In my judgment it is inconceivable that a client would not consider the option of an additional 10% uplift on general damages a material factor.
“The omission to raise this factor, even if the claimant immediately rejected it, seriously calls into question the adequacy of the advice given.
“Irwin Mitchell would appear to have been not been so much ‘leaning’ one way, as giving advice tailored to a decision they had already made.”

Your details

Cancel