Report comment

07:26 and 08:42 I'd love to know exactly how I, in the claimant sector, am to scrutinise the dealings of other claimant firms. Pray tell how I should, or just accept that not all claimant firms take the p and that are some actually have integrity.

It is far easier for the NHSLA/Resolution and Acumension to see what is going on and to make a stand where necessary, and good for them.

On other note, things like this make my blood boil. It is idiots like this, and those claiming costs for them, that have led to Acumension routinely offering 50% of a bill and then dragging out negotiations to cause cash-flow difficulties for small firms (according o an ex-Acumension costs draftsman).

On the other side of things I routinely had 100% success fees in clin neg cases unless there was a duty of candour letter accepting breach and causation (sorry was laughing so much I had to get up off the floor). 1 or 1.5 in 10 success rate - who pays for the failures and how much have the NHS saved because of what I did. A 100% success fee seemed just.

Even further on the other side the process of detailed assessment appears to have worked. Assessment is only the inter partes costs and they can claim what they want (though they are very silly indeed if they try such games). If they don't get what they want that is their lookout.

But £300k costs. That is more than 1 year's WIP for my partner and me. I'd like to know how much is Counsel's fees. And the poor soul who was cleared has to cop for some of that!?