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.


If there are firms out there, and i suspect there are many, that have deducted 25% from damages regardless of whether that has any correlation to the amount of work done on the file then look out!!!! Although the source of Green and Carlisle's work may be repugnant and illegal, if Claimants have had 25% deductions made from damages on a 'contingency fee ' basis then they have been ripped off by the greedy firm in question and will have a case for refund. I have had some cases where I have been unable to deduct the full 25% (usually in higher value cases) as the amount of work on the file did not justify the full deduction after credit was given for the costs received from the paying party. If you are a firm that deducts 25% without any regard to this then you are exposed to Green and Carlisle business model. You have created this autocannabilistic monster that we now have to read about in this publication that enjoys giving them a platform. Well why wouldn't the LSG as this topic generates the most 'chatter' on this website. Typical 'tabloid' approach.

Your details