Report comment

What complete and utter nonsense.......this is a firm of solicitors profiteering to the detriment of their client.

See Surrey v Barnet where the IM fee earner gave evidence at the assessment hearing that: “all "case handlers" were asked by partners in Irwin Mitchell to review their legally aided cases..."

In switching funding IM hoped to maximise the amount of costs they could make out of the case to the detriment of their client's damages.

What's not to like about the judgment for Claimant clinical negligence practitioners?

The judgment shows what Irwin Mitchell mean when they say that they "we act reasonably and in the best interests of our clients,"

They should be utterly ashamed!