Report comment

Given that many (the vast majority, in my experience) personal injury / clinical negligence claims are run on a CFA basis it does not make any sense for a solicitor to run an unmeritorious case / case without sufficient evidence to trial because the solicitor is not going to get paid unless the claim ends in a "win" as defined by the CFA. Most solicitors are trying to make a living which means working profitably on the cases with the best prospects of success and giving realistic advice to clients at the outset (and as the case progresses) to those that are unlikely to be successful.
I have dealt with a number of cases post LAPSO that I would previously have expected the Defendant to settle at an early stage but post LAPSO the Defendant is denying liability and effectively daring the Claimant to issue proceedings to see if they can win on liability.
Let's not pretend that LAPSO is perfect; it is far from it. But to suggest that it encourages Claimant's (or rather their representatives) to pursue claims further than before is nonsense.