Lawyers Make Profits From Clinical Blunders

It was noted that clinical negligance claims earnt British law firms £90m in legal fees in 2008. As a result, this has put both top clinical negligance lawyers and the NHS under fire, with blunders and compensation claims costing the tax-funded health service £264m in 2008.

Clinical negligance lawyers have been criticized for the high fees they are allowed to charge, generally earnt through conditional fee agreements. However, the outcome of a review considering the price of civil litigation cases, could ring the changes for this lucrative legal area. However, there is the potential for these fees to be reduced; a move which is keenly sought by the NHS Litigation Authority (NHSLA).

At present the majority of claims against the NHS are undertaken on conditional fee agreements, commonly known as “no win, no fee”. This method of payment is used widely for all kinds of accident and injury claims, whereby a personal injury solicitor is entitled to payment if they win their client’s case. The size of their fees generally reflects the value of damages received, so the big payouts associated with serious medical blunders provide an attractive financial prospect.

However, lawyers are quick to defend their position and offer a variety of strong justifications for the high fees they charge. All legal costs are approved by the court, so even the 100 per cent additional fees sometimes levied on cases settled early, are legally endorsed. And the very nature of a “no win, no fee” agreement dictates that fees for successful cases must inevitably compensate for the financial shortfall created by lost claims.

It is also possible to view lawyers’ fees, however steep, as a by-product of the failings of the NHS and not the primary issue which needs to be addressed; a personal injury lawyer working on conditional fee agreements only profit where negligance is proved and compensation paid. Furthermore, if the NHSLA refuses to admit liability for a claim which is ultimately won, their resistance can be considered as responsible for the unneccessary escalation of legal fees.

Nonetheless, the system of conditional fees is undoubtly open to exploitation and there are vast profits in legal fees there for the taking. The revelation of how much money lawyers took in 2008 from the NHS is likely to cause consternation in many quarters. Therefore, a review will undoubtely have to consider whether this is really a justifiable use of resources.