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.


I don't think anyone is seeking to deny the client's rights under the act: what they are seeking to do is avoid time consuming and costly parasitic litigation which is in many cases not in the former client's / claimant's best interests.

It is widely understood that those bringing these claims are doing so where the claimant has no adverse costs insurance.

It is for this reason why it is proper to inform former clients of the risks of proceeding: after all who would venture £5000 adverse costs just to see if they have been 'over charged' £500 (particularly when there is a no cost and no costs risk option available).

For those reasons there is a difference between insurer's trying to scare off claimant's and solicitors informing claimants of the risks of proceeding.

That there are numerous serious allegations which remain unanswered should also be a grave concern: so rather than suggesting that claimant's solicitors are being 'hoist wretched' and suggesting widespread poor practice perhaps we could have a balanced piece?

Your details