Report comment

From a cursory look at this (I am a busy high street claimant pi lawyer)it appears these bottom feeders are challenging the cases where lawyers have deducted 25% from damages on a 'contingency fee basis' regardless of whether the costs have actually been incurred. If lawyers are doing that then although the methods of obtaining these challenge instructions are questionable it is wrong if a client has a 25% deduction from damages to set off against costs which haven't been incurred. This could stem from a lawyers misunderstanding of when a 25% deduction can be made or being actively dishonest in deducting
it anyway. These challenges are the only way of policing this on behalf of clients which leads back to the flawed implementation of the Jackson changes. See Kerry Underwood's brilliant blogs on this.
It is difficult to be self righteous about which is worse here the bottom feeders or the lawyers who incorrectly make the 25% deduction at the expense of a client which then feeds those at the bottom.

The public image of the personal injury sector is already rock bottom so I guess the only solace is that it cannot get any lower. The Daily Mail must have got hold of this by now?