Report comment

Cutting through the bluster; Claimant solicitors did not create the market. Demand created the supply. The general public, in sufficient numbers, continue to instruct solicitors which in turns justifies their existence.

The reason being is that people either do not feel capable of navigating the minefield of civil litigation without legal advice or they do not feel sufficiently confident that the insurer will give them a fair settlement if they approach the matter as a LIP - can you blame them. Insurers were immediately up in arms about the change to the discount rate; an issue that only concerns the most seriously injured and vulnerable people - in the face of such nastiness how can joe public be confident about getting a fair crack of the whip.

You cannot compare bank customers pursuing their own PPI or Claimants seeking flight delay compensation; in those cases liability is usually straightforward and the quantification of damages is similarly simple (if not subject to a tariff) - the difference between those cases and a PI case is night and day.

The key really is the way that insurers see Claimants; they are not people with injuries, they are a problem affecting the bottom line and shareholders dividends. To suggest that solicitors should work for free in an adversarial system where the Defence fees are paid for by _compulsory_ motor insurance premiums is not only to miss the bigger picture but to deny its very existence.

Solicitors assisting Claimants are not engaged in a business transaction with the insurance company, but that is exactly how the insurers see each and every Claimant - they are a transaction with a number in the minus column. Their only wish is to reduce the average number or reduce the number of transactions - and to hell with the rule of law, equity, the magna carta and everything else that our justice system was built on.