Report comment

In fairness to Mr Carlisle, most of these posts seem a little little like the pots calling the kettle black.

My understanding from working within the profession for a number of years now is that a small proportion of volume RTA firms have been a little lackadaisical with their Solicitor/Client billing since 2013 and have simply taken 25% of the client's damages (plus ATE and perhaps an element of any shortfall), without checking they are fully entitled to it according to the retainer. This is all anecdotal of course, but if it were not the case, Mr C would not have had any successes at first instance.

Let us remind ourselves that the 25% is not a success fee, it is a cap on damages - the success fee remains up to 100% of solicitor's base charges. But if you have not wrongly billed your client more than you were entitled to, you have nothing to worry about surely?

If Mr C has been able to identify a number of such claims using SEO, then fair play to him. There is no adverse PR here, most volume RTA firms will be subject to fixed costs and not (IMHO) on his marketing radar.

I don't know Mr Carlisle and I don't know Mr Scott, I've never met either of them and I have no cross to bear, but it seems like Mr S has something of a bee in his bonnet. I expect the lack of response from Mr C means he is getting on with some actual work!