tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3128732951013053882024-02-08T02:02:59.475+00:00Blog of John Spencer: UK Personal Injury SolicitorJohn is one of the UK's leading personal injury solicitors, with over 28 years of experience. In addition to his role as Director of Spencers Solicitors, he is an advocate for claimant rights and believes that wholesale reform to the personal injury arena is needed to ensure transparency, access to justice and the protection of injured people. In this blog, John writes regularly about these issues.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17122793717237254918noreply@blogger.comBlogger132125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-312873295101305388.post-65526592698675454102014-12-05T16:26:00.000+00:002014-12-05T16:26:27.923+00:00The Importance of Being EthicalMy first book, <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1326028146" target="_blank">The Importance of Being Ethical</a>, is now available.<br />
<br />
I was prompted to put pen to paper because of what I've seen happening in the personal injury sector and society at large. My premise is a simple one: our society is rife with unethical conduct, and it occurs to the <b>detriment of everyone</b>.<br />
<br />
In the personal injury arena, we've seen all manner of shoddy practices in recent years, from referral fees and backhanders to cynical insurer-driven spin to the effect that we are plagued by a 'compensation culture' (a palpable myth) and that whiplash, a painful and debilitating condition, doesn't exist. These things have exercised me but so too have wider societal problems.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51COUfWU1kL.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="The Importance of Being Ethical book cover" border="0" src="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51COUfWU1kL.jpg" height="400" title="The Importance of Being Ethical" width="282" /></a>For example, as we sit down to watch - or avoid - the latest series of <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0071b63" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The Apprentice</a>, can we really believe that its contestants and their greed-driven egos are a good thing? In sport, why do we continue to condone cheating, as if the player who 'takes one for the team' is a shining exemplar of how to behave? In politics, the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-7-principles-of-public-life" target="_blank">Nolan Principles</a>, which put a premium on selflessness in the interest of the public good, are too often AWOL, as is also the case when it comes to ethics in the worlds of big business, banking, the media and police conduct.<br />
<br />
But for all that the latest outrage inevitably prompts calls for a new set of laws, we rarely need them. As is illustrated by the phone hacking scandal, a raft of perfectly sound laws exist to criminalise rogue journalists' behaviour; their lack of ethical scruple meant that they chose to ignore the law.<br />
<br />
"Integrity has no need of rules", said the French writer Albert Camus. He is right. We don't need a barrage of extra red tape but we do need a re-commitment to behaving ethically.<br />
<br />
I hope that The Importance of Being Ethical prompts, in some small way, a re-engagement with doing the right thing.<br />
<br />
<br />
The Importance of Being Ethical by <a href="http://www.spencerssolicitors.com/about-spencers-solicitors/management-team.html#JohnSpencer" target="_blank">John Spencer</a> is available on <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1326028146" target="_blank">Amazon</a> and <a href="http://www.lulu.com/shop/john-spencer/the-importance-of-being-ethical/paperback/product-21873650.html" target="_blank">Lulu</a>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-312873295101305388.post-89807665031324243322014-07-23T18:16:00.000+01:002014-07-23T18:16:04.423+01:00Dazed & Confused - How the World Cup was a disaster when it came to head injuriesHats off to Germany. They were the best side throughout the World Cup, and deservedly won what has to have been one of the best tournaments to date. There were some extraordinary games in Brazil between 12 June and 13 July, not least the eventual winners 7-1 thrashing of the hosts. Other classics were Nigeria 2, Argentina 3 and Germany 2, Ghana 2, though of the England team, perhaps the best thing to do is say that young players like Raheem Sterling and Daniel Sturridge showed that we might just have a decent future.<br />
<br />
But if Brazil 2014 will go down in history as a great and memorable World Cup, it could have been etched in our minds for the wrong reason. I refer not to what might have happened if Luis Suarez had longer teeth, but to the scant understand shown by match officials and administrators of the dangers of head injuries.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Potentially terrible consequences</h3>
<br />
Three serious incidents occurred in Brazil which could have had terrible consequences for the players involved. The first came when Uruguay beat England 2-1. Álvaro Pereira, the Uruguay defender, was knocked out in a collision with Sterling's knee. As The Times reported: "The Uruguay medical team were seen calling for his substitution, only to be overruled by the player, underlying their helplessness as occupational health physicians."<br />
<br />
Next came Argentina's semi-final win over Holland. The superb Javier Mascherano clashed heads with Georginio Wijnaldum towards the half hour mark and showed clear signs of concussion, wobbling on his feet before <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/world-cup-2014/javier-mascherano-suffer-concussion-argentina-3836162" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">slumping to the pitch</a>. In spite this, he was allowed to play on.<br />
<br />
Then came perhaps the worst incident of all, played out for all the world to see in the final. Christoph Kramer found himself in Germany's starting line-up (making his competitive debut for his country) after an injury in the warm-up to midfielder Sami Khedira. Early into the game, the young player's head smashed accidentally into an Argentinian player. Kramer was visibly disorientated, but was allowed to play on by Germany's medical staff. Fourteen minutes later, he fell to the ground, and was then substituted.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Boorish Lawrenson</h3>
<br />
<a href="http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/the_spot/2014/07/13/christoph_kramer_latest_world_cup_head_injury_shows_fifa_really_really_doesn/452103948-germanys-midfielder-christoph-kramer-is-helped-from-the.jpg.CROP.promo-mediumlarge.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="Germany midfielder Christoph Kramer helped from the field during the World Cup final" border="0" src="http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/the_spot/2014/07/13/christoph_kramer_latest_world_cup_head_injury_shows_fifa_really_really_doesn/452103948-germanys-midfielder-christoph-kramer-is-helped-from-the.jpg.CROP.promo-mediumlarge.jpg" height="228" title="Germany midfielder Christoph Kramer helped from the field via www.slate.com" width="320" /></a>Kramer has subsequently said that he <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_spot/2014/07/13/christoph_kramer_latest_world_cup_head_injury_shows_fifa_really_really_doesn.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">couldn't remember anything of the first half the game</a>. He looked awful as he left the pitch, eyes glazed and with a look of 'where am I and what is happening?' etched all over his features. His departure made for a telling counterpoint to the boorish, old-school tough guy <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04b9hqp/match-of-the-day-live-2014-fifa-world-cup-world-cup-final" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">commentary of the BBC's Mark Lawrenson</a>, who was persistently sarcastic at players' injuries throughout the tournament and objected to the Argentinian players calling - sportingly - for the ball to be put out of play when Kramer lay stricken. Lawrenson further demonstrated an apparent ignorance of what happens with head injuries when saying, as Kramer groggily waited to come back on, "He's fine. He's jogging round the pitch now."<br />
<br />
Thankfully, albeit that he was taken off looking anything but fine just under quarter of an hour later, Kramer does seem to be fine. So, too, was Tottenham goalkeeper Hugo Lloris, despite <a href="http://john-spencer.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/head-injuries-in-sport-learn-from-USA.html" target="">playing on after a head injury last November</a>. Likewise, we hope, Pereira and Mascherano.<br />
<br />
But here's the rub: when it comes to head injuries, we just don't know what damage may have been done. And <a href="http://www.spencerssolicitors.com/about-spencers-solicitors/head-injuries-in-sport.html" target="_blank">a minute or two of pitchside assessment</a>, when a player has been knocked out or is as visibly awry as Kramer, is woefully inadequate.<br />
<br />
Fifpro, the world players' union, has rightly criticised Fifa for failing to protect the players upon which its tournament depends. The union predicts "a tidal wave [of compensation claims] that will engulf" professional football, unless a protocol regarding concussion is adopted as part of the rules of the game. Radically, and yet sensibly, Fifpro also calls for a review of the laws of the game to compensate a team if it goes down to 10 men while a head injury is being assessed.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Prevention is better than cure</h3>
<br />
And assessment is crucial. We don't want professional football to end up like the NFL in the United States, or the NHL, where <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/26/sports/hockey/retired-players-sue-nhl-over-head-injuries.html?hpw&rref=sports&_r=0" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">significant class action litigation over head injuries</a> is now a fact of life. Not because of bogus objections to people suing for compensation, but because we don't want to see people needlessly injured. The fact is that a head injury can be fatal; it can lead to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-impact_syndrome" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Second Impact Syndrome</a>, when a later blow on top of the first one leads to brain damage or death.<br />
<br />
Proper attention to head injuries is vital. It is essential that Fifa and the game's national governing bodies around the world take action to ensure that prevention is better than cure - for the fundamental reason that when it comes to a head injury, there may well not be a cure.<br />
<br />
Let's give thanks to the continuing recovery of Christoph Kramer and his colleagues - and pray that a professional football match is not one day the scene of a fatal head injury because of governing body negligence.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-312873295101305388.post-69650849696203618182014-06-24T11:09:00.000+01:002014-06-24T11:09:34.738+01:00The Health and Safety at Work Act turns 40. An anniversary to celebrateTurning 40 isn't always a welcome event. We tend to lament the formal entry into middle age and, in some cases, deal with it in a curious way - perhaps going and buying a Harley Davidson motorbike, or setting off to climb Mont Blanc. Some of us even deny that turning 40 has happened.<br />
<br />
But this year, a 40th anniversary should be applauded and publicised as much as possible. Granted, it's not a human one. I'm referring, though, to something created by human beings and made into the law of the land: the Health and Safety at Work Act, 1974.
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.safetyservicesdirect.com/ekmps/shops/baxter/images/mag10.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="Health & Safety Sign" border="0" src="http://www.safetyservicesdirect.com/ekmps/shops/baxter/images/mag10.jpg" title="Health & Safety at Work Act turns 40" /></a></div>
<br />
The Act received the Royal Assent on 31 July 1974. For all that the redtops insist on running stories bemoaning the 'nanny state' and claiming that it's a result of this piece of legislation, they're wrong. The Health and Safety at Work Act has changed our lives immeasurably for the better.
<br />
<br />
Before the Act came into being, fatalities to employees covered by the legislation then in place stood at 651. Hundreds of thousands of people were being injured. But last year, as <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10903222/Lets-fly-the-flag-for-the-life-saving-health-and-safety-law.html#2" target="_blank">this piece from the Telegraph reports</a>, the number of fatalities at work was down to 148 and non-fatal injuries have dropped by more than 75 per cent. This is a result of the Act and, indeed, the actual reduction may well be greater: back in the early seventies, data for sectors not covered by health and safety law was not collated.
<br />
<br />
<h3>
A Duty for all employers</h3>
<br />
The Act places a duty on all employers 'to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work' of all their employees. Among its provisions, the Act requires employers to ensure the safe operation and maintenance of the working environment, plant and systems; the maintenance of safe access and egress to the workplace; the safe use, handling and storage of dangerous substances; that there is adequate training of staff to ensure health and safety; and that there is adequate welfare provision for staff at work. Safety procedures must be displayed for all to see, proper training given, adequate protective clothing worn and risk assessments made. All risks must be controlled and monitored.
<br />
<br />
All this is profoundly sensible. Thanks to the law putting these duties on employers it is likely that the Act has reduced deaths by 5,000 or more. Health and Safety Executive Chair Judith Hackitt summed up the effect of the Act well, <a href="http://www.hse.gov.uk/news/judith-risk-assessment/index.htm" target="_blank">writing, in January</a>:<br />
<br />
<em>"This year will mark 40 years since Health and Safety at Work Act received Royal Assent. Arguably it is one of the best pieces of legislation on the statute books - although we know it is often misunderstood and misinterpreted. It has protected millions of British workers, and driven sharp reductions in incidents of occupational death, serious injury and ill health."</em><br />
<br />
<h3>
Creation of the Act </h3>
<br />
<a href="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41KZJCEAD2L._.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="Aberfan: Government and Disasters book cover" border="0" src="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41KZJCEAD2L._.jpg" height="320" title="Aberfan: Government and Disasters from Amazon" width="199" /></a>The Act came about as the result of the recommendations of the Robens Committee, which reported in 1972. It concluded that the existing workplace safety legislation was too complicated and confusing, with about 30 Acts and 500 sets of regulations. Lord Robens proposed a simplified structure, the primary intention of which was to ensure that the highest standards of health and safety at work were met.<br />
<br />
Intriguingly, Lord Robens did not cover himself in glory in 1966, when the Aberfan disaster happened. Then, at 9.15 am on Friday, 21 October 1966, a Welsh community was devastated when a waste tip slid down a mountainside. Colliery waste, liquefied by underground springs, killed 144 people, 116 of whom were children. Lord Robens, then the Chairman of the National Coal Board, took a full 36 hours to arrive at Aberfan, preferring first to attend his investiture as Chancellor of the University of Surrey. Robens' subsequent behaviour over Aberfan was scheming and cynical, as revealed by Professor Iain McLean and Martin Johnes in their excellent book, published in 2000, <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Aberfan-Government-Disasters-Ian-McLean/dp/186057033X/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Aberfan: Government and Disasters</a>.<br />
<br />
Perhaps Robens' conscience helped him later urge the enactment of the Health and Safety at Work Act? I am not sure, but I do know that the Act is a 40-year-old that we should celebrate.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-312873295101305388.post-51328032813376175842014-06-19T09:16:00.000+01:002014-06-19T11:33:00.701+01:00Marketing Successfully in the Post-Jackson Era<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>This article was first published in the <a href="http://www.sweetandmaxwell.co.uk/catalogue/productdetails.aspx?recordid=396&productid=6855" target="_blank">Journal of Personal Injury Law</a> and appears by courtesy of Sweet and Maxwell/Thomson Reuters.</i></div>
<br />
<br />
The legal profession has been able to advertise since 1986. What was first a case of crossing the Rubicon for an instinctively conservative profession was quickly embraced and is now widely practised. But the <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/10/contents/enacted" target="_blank">Legal Services and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO)</a> makes it more important than ever to advertise effectively.<br />
<br />
This article focuses on digital media and how traditional promotional methods should work in tandem with digital technologies to reach more clients, concluding with an examination of how to monitor and measure the success of work generation strategies.<br />
<br />
John Spencer draws on his own experience over the past 30 years, and especially since the autumn of 2011- during which period the author rebuilt his practice from one which depended exclusively on referral fee based sources of work to one which, in 2014, generates 70% of its work directly rather than from referrals.<br />
<br />
<h3>
The legal and professional framework</h3>
<br />
Since 1986 it has been possible for Personal Injury (PI) practices to advertise, but with the implementation of Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 on April 1, 2013, the necessity to market well and effectively has been brought home with renewed force. Indeed, in today's legal services landscape, to ignore marketing imperatives would be tantamount to commercial suicide. The welter of change to which the PI sector has been subject is as well-known as it is dramatic, involving the introduction of qualified one way costs shifting, the removal of recoverability of success fees and ATE premiums, the increase of 10% in general damages, a greater emphasis on proportionality of costs and the extension of fixed costs, as well as fundamental changes to the court's approach to case management and costs budgeting. Aside from all these factors, arguably it is the ban on referral fees (<a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/10/section/56/enacted" target="_blank">LASPO ss.56-60</a>) which brings about the greatest challenge for firms having to 'self-generate' work for the first time.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.wildy.com/static/law_society/2013/9781907698033.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="SRA Handbook Front Cover" border="0" src="http://www.wildy.com/static/law_society/2013/9781907698033.jpg" height="400" title="SRA Handbook" width="266" /></a>This article does not focus on ways to circumvent the referral fee ban through one of the avenues available, whether by forming an alternative business structure (ABS) or embarking on a joint venture through an ABS, or through arranging for the provision of 'information' which would enable the recipient to provide relevant services to the client through the client him or herself, or indeed through other methods.<br />
<br />
Instead, it focuses on how to generate work directly through other marketing techniques. But aside from the referral fee ban, what are the relevant regulatory provisions that practitioners need to have in mind?<br />
In marketing, as in all areas of practice, the <a href="http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/handbook/code/part1/content.page" target="_blank">10 mandatory principles in the SRA Code of Conduct</a> are pertinent and form an overarching framework for practitioners. <a href="http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/handbook/code/part3/rule8/content.page" target="_blank">Principles most relevant to marketing</a> are to act with integrity, not to allow independence to be compromised, to act in the best interests of each client and to behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places in the legal profession as a whole.<br />
<br />
In addition, practitioners must comply with their legal and regulatory obligations. Outcomes from this part of the Code include ensuring publicity is not misleading, that charges are clearly and unambiguously expressed, and that unsolicited approaches in person or by telephone to publicise practices are avoided.<br />
<br />
Taking code compliance as read, how should firms proceed to plan their work generation strategies?<br />
<br />
<h3>
Ethos and focus</h3>
<br />
Each practice should ensure that it has a clear position, established through focusing first on its clients and developed through engagement with all those working in its business. This will form the backdrop to the practice's business plan generally and specifically its business development plan. Never is it more important to have clarity in positioning than when communicating with the public. An established, clearly defined firm ethos will help establish priorities, for example whether the emphasis is local or national and which categories of injured persons and liability types are in focus (and in what order of priority). The ethos and targets will inform communication and advertising as will ancillary choices such as those with regard to sponsorship.<br />
<br />
Existing clients are a goldmine of information. For instance they will inform the importance of reliable ancillary advice and home visits, as well as the sorts of information that injured people would like to be able to access through a firm's website. What questions they have, and in what level of detail they would like answers, can all help identify changes and enhancements to assist clients and potential clients. Clients will also reveal what matters most to them, perhaps the importance of their local community, and other issues which they see as a high priority. Each practice will have different dynamics to consider and will make different choices, but it is vital that there is this kind of engagement with clients. It is an ethical as well as a commercial mistake not to do this.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Traditional media</h4>
<br />
Traditional media should not be ignored, and the mix of media used will vary according to budget, locality, ethos and preferences. Digital resources simply provide new and more powerful ways of promoting a practice. There is still need to create written articles and comment, engage in conferences and be involved in and known around your community. Just as personal folders in Microsoft Outlook replace paper files, so the internet supplies the foundation for a relatively new and extremely powerful communication tool.<br />
<br />
There remains the need have to have something to communicate which is consistent with the chosen ethos and focus and it must be credible. This remains core material for practices which now can reach so many more through digital technologies.<br />
<br />
Moving away from referred work means that advertising in all its forms becomes vital. Through newspapers, radio and even TV, each practice will cut its cloth according to its budget taking account of its target audience. Consistency and core values become even more important here to ensure that practices are consistently presented; ideally, nothing should ethically jar.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.susskind.com/" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="Tomorrow’s Lawyers Book Cover" border="0" src="http://www.susskind.com/images/book-tomorrows-lawyers.jpg" height="320" title="Tomorrow’s Lawyers by Richard Susskind" width="208" /></a><br />
<h3>
Digital media</h3>
<br />
Digital applications are the single most powerful tool with which businesses can communicate today. Referring to IT in his latest book <a href="http://www.susskind.com/" rel="" target="_blank">Tomorrow's Lawyers</a>, Richard Susskind states:<br />
<br />
<i>"IT is now pervasive in our world. There are over 2.2 billion Internet users … and every two days, according to Google's Eric Schmidt, 'we create as much information as we did from the dawn of civilisation up until 2003'."</i><br />
<br />
<br />
<h4>
Website</h4>
<br />
The website is the shop window of a practice and it must be right. If the shop window is wrong, people will not visit. The ethos, approach and philosophy need to be accurate and therefore credible and clearly explained. This needs to be consistently presented across all aspects of the website. Services need to be clearly explained, contradictory services should be avoided; if this is not the case there needs to be a focus on something other than service type to avoid contradiction. For example, a practice specialising in both claimant and insurer PI work may have a core value around excellent and fearless professional representation whatever the issue at stake, whereas an exclusively claimant practice can take a more unequivocal claimant-campaigning position if it so chooses. Visitors to sites need to be comfortable with where they have landed, and confident they will be well looked after. Advice needs to be relevant, clear and concise.<br />
<br />
Moreover, potential client visitors landing need to be converted to be clients. Technologies like conversion analytics and heat maps to show where visitors tend to focus can help inform where an invitation to provide instructions might be most effective; it will also reveal areas of lesser interest to visitors. To most visitors external accreditations and kite marks are important, as are (perhaps more surprisingly) photographs of premises.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Pay per click</h4>
<br />
Pay per click is a method of advertising on a search engine when a user types in a certain phrase. But unlike most other forms of advertising payers only pay for the click once someone has interacted with it.<br />
<br />
Pay per click became very expensive in the immediate aftermath of the referral fee ban in April 2013.<br />
Prices have settled somewhat but it remains expensive and each enquiry generated through pay per click may cost several hundred pounds or more. Pay per click is a bidding process where quality and price are relevant. If a practice is perceived to be of greater 'quality' it will pay less for a search term. This is another reason for firms to invest time and resource in optimisation in that it will improve its quality rating and consequently reduce the cost of pay per click. To increase scale will also reduce the cost of pay per click. However, I focus on quality in looking at optimisation.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Search Engine Optimisation (SEO)</h4>
<br />
In the United Kingdom, Google has 88% of the search market, with its closest competitor Bing/Yahoo having around a combined 10% of the rest. In the United States, Google is less dominant, having around 70% of the market. Maximising the impact of a practice through optimisation when people use search engines is important, especially so with Google given its dominant market share.<br />
<br />
While pay per click advertising can get services onto Google, the majority of the content on the results page is still made up from organic listings. Organic listings appear on merit and what Google judges to be the most relevant content for what a web user is searching for.<br />
<br />
Optimising content to try to rank higher in search-engine owner results, known as Search Engine Optimisation (SEO), is a long-term project, whereas pay per click provides quick and early wins. A practice can also calculate fairly accurately, once its strategy is established, what its pay per click spend will yield in terms of enquiries; this is not so with SEO. SEO is about quality content, and refreshing, reviewing and continually working to improve the number of visitors received. For a successful SEO strategy it is important to engage as many people working in an organisation as possible in the process. There are different challenges with pay per click: it is expensive, and the lower the perceived quality of content the more expensive it is.<br />
<br />
There are, however, dangers with SEO and organic listings. Search engines like Google are becoming increasingly strict. They want genuine websites that offer the most value and relevance, and without any manipulation. They regularly develop and change their algorithms (the rules which the search engine uses in order to rank pages), and are making concerted efforts to eradicate manipulation. Constant vigilance is required to avoid falling foul of their policing through optimisation strategies. In essence, optimisation must be genuine rather than seeking to enhance reputation falsely - which is what the search engines are trying to prevent.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Search engine policing</h4>
<br />
As stated earlier, Google is the overwhelmingly dominant search engine, and for this reason I use it as an example. However, the principles in operation will equally apply to other search engines.<br />
<br />
Google monitors approximately 200 signals from web pages when deciding how to rank them in its results. This process is largely done automatically and algorithmically by constantly trawling web pages to determine which is the most relevant to display in relation to users' searches.<br />
<br />
In theory, this means that pages which are the most relevant and offer users the most value will rank above those that offer less. Google details its ranking principles in its <a href="https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/35769?hl=en" target="_blank">Webmaster Guidelines</a> which sets out how pages should be built in order to provide users with the best experience.<br />
<br />
But as with any rule, there are those who will seek to bend and even break them. For this reason, a large part of the guidelines relate to 'Quality Guidelines'. If a website breaches them then the practice will run the risk of a Google penalisation.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/COcl6ax38IY?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
Google can and does take manual action on websites where it spots anything untoward, either with regard to unnatural links or otherwise trying to 'trick' Google or its users. Examples would be websites that hide text, that copy content from other websites or generally try to deceive users.<br />
<br />
There have been a number of solicitors' practices which have been delisted following action by Google.<br />
<br />
Rather more famously, <a href="http://searchengineland.com/google-says-no-comment-on-why-interflora-was-penalized-149308" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Interflora's website was apparently delisted for a period of time</a> after it was discovered that the company had financially incentivised bloggers to talk about and link to its website. The number and quality of links to a website is a key factor that Google takes into account when ranking websites.<br />
<br />
Attempting to manipulate these links can result in severe penalties and manual action.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h4>
Complying with search engine guidelines</h4>
<br />
The SEO agency needs to be trusted implicitly. Due diligence and referencing is essential. Practice members need to speak to the agency and those people specifically allocated to its account. A firm needs to share its plans and hear its agency’s ideas and vice versa. There needs to be clear understanding of the practice ethos and business. Practices need to be satisfied that their agency’s ethics are sound. Return on investment needs to be evaluated and understood. It needs to be known how the agency intends to raise profile online; if any of this sounds like it is easy or too good to be true then it probably is.<br />
<br />
Offers may be received from websites or agencies wanting to sell links to the firm's website, blog or even promising more followers on Twitter and Facebook. Many of these are trying to exploit search engine algorithms and if their covert efforts are discovered it will be apparent that they have done more harm than good.<br />
<br />
There are organisations which operate solely to sell advertising on a so called 'churn and burn' basis.<br />
<br />
These organisations set up a suitably and appositely named website and then set about selling sponsorship to firms, businesses and individuals who will be interested in instructions or workflow from such an organisation. However, the reality is that there may be little traffic to the website and their only goal is to sell potential sponsorship packages for 12 months.<br />
<br />
Not all website listings and sponsorships operate in this way and some may add genuine value. For example, many people still use Yell.com and having an enhanced Yell.com listing may be valuable when attracting local clients. But when offered sponsorship of this type which apparently might be useful in attracting potential clients firms need to do due diligence to ensure there is likely to be a return on investment.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Social media </h4>
<br />
The number of social networks (<a href="https://twitter.com/spencerssols" target="_blank">Twitter</a>, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/spencerssolicitors" target="_blank">Facebook</a>, <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/spencers-solicitors" target="_blank">LinkedIn</a>, <a href="https://www.google.com/+Spencerssolicitors" target="_blank">Google+</a> etc) is ever-increasing and practices should have at least a basic presence on each major social networking site. Use of social media can range from publishing news items and content to taking part in discussions or engaging with clients.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/ralphpaglia/6354852227/sizes/z/" imageanchor="1" rel="nofollow" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Social Media Landscape chart" border="0" src="https://farm7.staticflickr.com/6053/6354852227_09b6bb7aca.jpg" title="Social Media Landscape by DigitalRalph via flickr" /></a></div>
<br />
Each network has its own technologies and audience, but it is important to develop a social media strategy that includes as a minimum:<br />
<ul>
<li>who in the practice is responsible for social media and interacting with each social network;</li>
<li>what content is to be placed on each network;</li>
<li>if individual lawyers are to use their personal accounts for business purposes; and</li>
<li>ensuring guidelines and a framework is in place.</li>
</ul>
<br />
<h4>
Visitor conversion and client retention</h4>
<br />
Once a practice has acquired visitors to its website it must then turn these visitors into clients. Once a firm is instructed, tight risk assessment procedures need to be in place. A dedicated and well-trained initial client liaison team may be the best way to ensure that potential clients are looked after and secured.<br />
<br />
Over-worked practitioners are not always the best at converting and then retaining clients. It is beyond the scope of this article to say much more on this, other than to emphasise the importance of enquiries converting to instructions for your firm in meritworthy cases which clients wish to pursue.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Measurement and monitoring</h3>
<br />
There are various ways to measure effectiveness in marketing and there are no absolute answers to what is right or wrong. There are below set out some suggestions for areas to scrutinise.<br />
<br />
Web content should be monitored, likewise the creation of blogs, articles and other content, including content on social media. It is important to have a clear and effective policy to ensure good content is generated which is useful to enquirers and clients. It is imperative it is accurate. Any opinions expressed should, where appropriate, be suitably caveated.<br />
<br />
Content must be consistent with a practice's culture and ethos. Non-lawyer as well as lawyer input can be appropriate. Writing does need to express personality, which can be an area of difficulty for lawyers, for whom care and precision of expression rather than personality are more natural.<br />
<br />
Some practices, according to size and resource, may employ PR agencies and again measurement and engagement is vital.<br />
<br />
With digital agencies content should be monitored, so too the exposure that they gain and the traffic they generate to a practice's website. Agency performance should be scrutinised for evidence of the agency's appetite and quality of new ideas and targeting and general 'nose' for a good idea or opportunity.<br />
<br />
Each practice will make its own decisions regarding what it chooses to review and measure, but the following might usefully be considered:<br />
<br />
<b>Organic performance:</b><br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>what search terms a practice is aiming to rank for and progress towards achieving these rankings;</li>
<li>amount of organic traffic to the website;</li>
<li>visitor conversion rates, i.e. the number of site visitors versus the number of enquiries made;</li>
<li>client retention rates, setting an appropriate period or periods for measuring and evaluating this; and</li>
<li>the quality and quantity of links to websites; as mentioned earlier not all links are beneficial.</li>
</ul>
<br />
<b>Pay per click:</b><br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>keywords, the most relevant search terms for services that are being targeted;</li>
<li>Impressions, how often advertisements are shown;</li>
<li>clicks, how often advertisements are clicked;</li>
<li>cost per click, and what a practice is willing to pay for a targeted visitor; and</li>
<li>cost per enquiry, how many clicks have been paid for to generate an enquiry.</li>
</ul>
<br />
<b>Marketing and financial:</b><br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>work generation;</li>
<li>cost per enquiry;</li>
<li>cost per converted and retained case;</li>
<li>abandon rates;</li>
<li>billing rates;</li>
<li>risk rates by case category; and</li>
<li>case acquisition cost by type, to take account of any disbursement write offs, both fault and no fault.</li>
</ul>
<br />
<h3>
Conclusion</h3>
<br />
It is a regrettable fact of life that such is the intensity and uncertainty of change that even for the excellent there is no guarantee of success. Forecasting is, at best, an educated guess. Time alone will tell how successful a firm's marketing strategy, digital or otherwise, has been.<br />
<br />
Following the implementation of LASPO as well as rapidity of technological change, the dynamics and cost of acquiring work are now very different - especially to how they were back in the days when law firms were prohibited from advertising. The fees which can be earned for every type of Personal Injury work have altered, and for some types of case the alteration is dramatic. Changes are compound and cumulative and cover recoverable fees, procedure and process, not to mention increased client competition fuelled by the increasing prevalence of consolidation through the availability of ABSs.<br />
<br />
Add to all this the need for most to invest in wholesale new procedures and processes, and training and retraining, and one can readily conclude that these are very uncertain times. However, the vast majority of practitioners are highly motivated and determined people, who will hopefully survive and, indeed, flourish. In order to do so is, though, they need to embrace the brave new world and ensure that the firm is at the cutting edge of digital marketing.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-312873295101305388.post-62319534912777888592014-05-21T09:44:00.000+01:002014-05-27T09:06:17.736+01:00Hats off to Guy Tweedy and David Mason, exemplary campaigners on behalf of Thalidomide victimsHats off to <a href="http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/guy-tweedy/49/706/724" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Guy Tweedy</a> and <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-27420736" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">David Mason</a>, two men whose campaigning on behalf of Thalidomide victims is exemplary.<br />
<br />
Tweedy, a Harrogate businessman, has long campaigned on behalf of Thalidomide victims. A couple of weeks ago he continued his tireless representation of those whose lives were blighted by the drug by flying to New York to assist 53-year-old Mark Gizewski.<br />
<br />
Mason's daughter, Louise, was born without arms or legs because of the drug. Ever since he has fought for compensation from the Thalidomide's UK distributor, Distillers. His story was told in last week's heartrending and yet inspiring BBC2 documentary, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0441xct" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Thalidomide: The Fifty Year Fight</a>. It is a story of remarkable courage and determination as Grünenthal, whose product was responsible for more than 100,000 babies in 46 countries being born with disabilities, fought tooth and nail against paying compensation to its many victims.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/XZbJhIhiRu0?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
<h3>
<b>Gizeski's case</b></h3>
<br />
Gizewski suffered tragically because of Thalidomide. He was born with a number of deformities including dwarfism, scoliosis of the spine, severe deformity to his limbs and sphincter and bilateral radial club hands. He has the mental age of a 10-year-old. His learning difficulties are attributed to his having spent the first five years of his life in hospital.<br />
<br />
Gizewski is a full-time wheelchair user. He is also a petty criminal and has served time in New York's Five Points Correctional Facility. Here, says Tweedy, US prison authorities have subjected him to physical violence and intimidation. Adding insult to injury, they have neglected his medical needs. Tweedy believes that Gizewski should be released on permanent parole. As he puts it, in this <a href="http://www.harrogateadvertiser.co.uk/news/local/campaigner-s-fight-for-thalidomide-victim-1-6592240" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">piece in</a> the Harrogate Advertiser:<br />
<br />
"Mark's case is one of the saddest I have ever come across in all my years' campaigning on behalf of fellow victims. Because of his learning disabilities he fell into the wrong crowd, and subsequently found himself on the wrong side of the law. His treatment in prison has been diabolical. His pleas for help and medication to ease his chronic pain fell on deaf ears and the injuries he sustained are truly shocking."<br />
<br />
Tweedy previously campaigned for <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-16333373" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">the release from a Filipino jail of William Burton</a>, from Wetherby, who was jailed for 30 years in 1992 after being caught trying to smuggle 12lb (5.4kg) of cannabis out of the country. Burton has a Thalidomide-related condition, but thanks to the efforts of Tweedy, <a href="http://www.thalidomideuk.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Thalidomide UK</a> and other campaigners was granted a pardon in 2011 by President Benigno Aquino.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<b>Thalidomide in context</b></h3>
<br />
To rewind and puts things in context, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Thalidomide</a> was manufactured in the 1950s. It was sold from 1957 until 1962. Initially used as a sleeping pill, its use morphed into an apparent panacea for pregnant women suffering from the effects of morning sickness. Tragically, though, it caused many different forms of birth defect.<br />
<br />
The drug was withdrawn from sale in 1962 after the link between its use and deformities - including shortened limbs, blindness, brain damage, missing sexual organs and missing internal organs - was conclusively proved. But as if its victims had not suffered enough, the past 50 years have been a different kind of battleground. The German manufacturer of the drug, Grünenthal, only recently managed to issue a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/02/world/europe/grunenthal-group-apologizes-to-thalidomide-victims.html?_r=0" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">public apology to Thalidomide victims</a>.<br />
<br />
Tweedy is himself a Thalidomide victim. His work on behalf of other victims has been exemplary. While this week sees him in the United States trying to help Gizewski, earlier this year, in January, he was in Brussels <a href="http://www.europeandyou.com/news/1511/3/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">lobbying the EU Health Commissioner</a>. He presently sits on the Council of the estimable <a href="http://www.thalidomidetrust.org/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Thalidomide Trust</a>. Its work on behalf of Thalidomide victims is excellent.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<b>Mason's courage</b></h3>
<br />
As the BBC2 documentary revealed, Mason kept going when others would have crumbled. He knew something was wrong when the doctor in the delivery room came out and asked – "With no congratulations or anything" – if he could have a word. Mason strode past him to see his wife and his baby daughter. As he put it: "And there was just a – torso, with what appeared to be little flowers where her arms and legs should be."<br />
<br />
Mason refused a derisory offer from Distillers. It was a deal that was ethically unsound: everyone had to sign it, or no one got anything. Mason's refusal, on principle, meant that the families of other victims took against him. So, too – extraordinarily – did his own solicitors, petitioning to have him removed as Louise's guardian.<br />
But Mason was unbowed. With commendable help from a number of quarters, including the Sunday Times, he pressed on. Eventually Distillers came up with £300m for the 300 children still involved. It was accepted. No wonder Louise calls her father "a hero".<br />
<br />
<h3>
<b>Your support is needed</b></h3>
<br />
Tweedy has already begun lobbying the American Ambassador in London, New York State Senators Kirsten Gillibrand and Chuck Schuner, and New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo. He told the Harrogate Advertiser, of his trip to New York, that he is determined "by the time I leave for home he will have a parole date set. Giving up is not is my nature - American prison authorities will come to understand this."<br />
<br />
As a personal injury lawyer I can only admire and commend Guy Tweedy's fantastic work. Likewise, I can only stand back in awe of Mason's great and relentless courage.<br />
<br />
And I can urge my colleagues in the <a href="http://www.apil.org.uk/" target="_blank">Association of Personal Injury Lawyers</a> to pick up the baton, do likewise, and pledge to help Thalidomide victims wherever possible.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17122793717237254918noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-312873295101305388.post-58160629860388310212014-05-08T17:34:00.000+01:002014-05-08T17:34:20.961+01:00My APIL Presidential AddressLast week I had the honour of taking up the role of President for the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL), an organisation of which I've been a member of since 1995. I gave my first speech as president at our 2014 conference last Thursday at Celtic Manor which you can watch below as well as read the full transcript of.<br />
<br />
As I explain in my address, taking up this role I hope to champion ethical reform to the legal system and continue to fight for the rights of injured people along with all the other members of the association.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div itemscope="video" itemtype="http://schema.org/VideoObject">
<h4 style="text-align: center;">
<span itemprop="name">Video of John Spencer's Presidential address at the APIL Conference 2014</span></h4>
<div id="schema-videoobject">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" height="380" width="640">
<param name="src" value="https://youtube.googleapis.com/v/ll025a8PYNk" />
<embed width="560" height="315" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="https://youtube.googleapis.com/v/ll025a8PYNk" />
</object></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span itemprop="description">Presidential speech at the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers annual conference 2014 - Celtic Manor, Gwent, Wales.</span>
</div>
</div>
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<h4>
PRESIDENTIAL SPEECH TO THE APIL ANNUAL CONFERENCE<br />CELTIC MANOR, 1 MAY 2014</h4>
</div>
<br />
Thank you all for coming here today. We come together at the tail end of a barrage of reforms and battles which have left lawyers reeling and injured people the losers. But, while there are many in politics, the media and the insurance industry who probably wish we would roll over and give up, we have not given up and I know we won't.<br />
<br />
We will stand united because, however much they may be maligned, or undermined or commoditised, injured people still need our help. As long as people are negligent, other people will be injured as a result. These people will always need our help. Who else can do what we can?<br />
<br />
Injured people must have an effective voice. We must provide that voice, and no commercial incentive can ever be as inspiring. I know that from my own experience. Comparing my work as a commercial businessman and my work campaigning on behalf of injured people, I know what I find most motivating and gratifying. Being a member of this organisation is about one hundred per cent commitment to injured people - this is what we provide. After all, who else is going to fight for them? It's down to us. <br />
<br />
We're having to adapt to survive in this tough new environment. We are adapting, we are surviving, and I know everyone in this room is still just as dedicated, just as determined, to help injured people who need us now more than ever before.<br />
<br />
I'm passionate about the rights of injured people, and I know you feel the same. Sometimes it's easy to forget why we do this - why we did all those years of study and training. It's easy to be sucked into the business of the law, especially when our businesses are threatened. It almost happened to me.<br />
<br />
When I started out as a trainee I conducted family, care, property, commercial and criminal cases as well as Persona Injury. I got on quite well and somewhere along the line I realised I'd majored on being a businessman. I became embroiled in ambitious plans for business growth and was so immersed in that, and so focussed on the daily work of making a practice grow and making a profit, that somewhere along the line I forgot what really mattered. But then I had an opportunity for a rethink - to stop and take stock. I knew I wanted to build something more worthwhile - a professional, ethical practice which put the vulnerable, the injured person, at the centre.<br />
<br />
I'm pleased to say that now I am doing that, and doing it, not by focussing just on the rules and the daily practise of the law, but by pouring energy into what is truly professional, what is ethical and what is right. After all, we all know instinctively what is right, don't we? Politicians, doctors, lawyers, insurers - we all know what is right. What often appears to be difficult, though, is actually doing what is right rather than what is expedient.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Legal Reform</h3>
<br />
So in the next year I want us to redouble our efforts to persuade everyone who is involved with developing and delivering legal reform to do the right thing for injured people. Being injured by the avoidable fault of another is, in itself, bad enough. What injured people need is justice and care. This is the justice to which they have a right; it’s the mark of a civilised society.<br />
<br />
I believe - and hope - the worst of this reform agenda is behind us. The time is now right to drive forward in a new gear, to work at proactive reform to help injured people. We must also continue to strive for the very highest standards of professional excellence so we can all be the very best lawyers we can be. And we must never allow ourselves to forget why we do this, and what APIL stands for in the first place - the legitimate rights of the injured person.<br />
<br />
I think we can be forgiven if we have developed something of a siege mentality after recent developments. I know this is the moment to get out of the bunker and get back to focussing on our own campaign agenda, never neglecting our work to help members, and their practices flourish as businesses.<br />
<br />
People talk a lot about rights these days - and that's good. So let's remember, injured people have rights. APIL's purpose has always been to fight for those rights, to campaign for fairness in the law, to prevent needless injury, and to make sure our members are the very best lawyers they can be, and to deliver the best service possible.<br />
<br />
We have all seen the right to full and fair compensation eroded over recent years, while at the same time injured people are vilified in some media and public forums. The new <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/impact-assessment-mesothelioma-payment-scheme-and-mandatory-membership-of-employer-liability-tracing-office-elto" target="_blank">mesothelioma scheme</a> is a case in point. Why shouldn't people with mesothelioma who are forced to use the scheme because their insurers can't be traced have to give up some of their damages? They would have lost even more if the Government had not passed on administrative savings into the scheme.<br />
<br />
Why can't insurers who've taken and invested profits from premiums over decades do the right thing and pass on some of that profit to ensure these people receive 100 per cent of their compensation? It should be socially unacceptable for them even to consider not so doing. Political debate during the passage of the Mesothelioma Bill made it very clear that 75 per cent was about the best 'deal' the Government could get from the insurers. But this shouldn't be about doing a deal. It should be about doing what's right. To deprive someone of any of the compensation to which he is entitled when he probably only has months to live is, in my view, unconscionable.<br />
<br />
As I stand here addressing you in Newport, I am reminded of the fierce battle going on about who is responsible for asbestos in schools in this jurisdiction. The UK Government says asbestos management is a devolved issue, while the Welsh Government says it is the responsibility of the HSE. It is fair to say that until someone accepts full and clear responsibility for asbestos in schools in Wales, nothing will be put in place to manage the situation, and that is completely unacceptable.<br />
<br />
This issue demands a proactive approach rather than the piecemeal short-term reactive approach we currently have, and it must be a co-ordinated approach for the whole of the United Kingdom. Organisations such as <a href="http://www.asbestosexposureschools.co.uk/" target="_blank">Asbestos in Schools</a> are campaigning tirelessly on this issue and we fully support this work.<br />
<br />
I've already touched on the fact that what I find particularly tough to take is the way justice often plays second fiddle to commercial interests. In this, injured people really are at the back of the queue. It seems that being injured - not through some simple accident but because someone just did not or could not be bothered to take proper care - can make a person a pariah in the eyes of the Government, the press, and business - largely, in my view, as a result of the ABI's cynical campaign to undermine the rights of injured people. <br />
<br />
I believe it was a sad day when lord chancellors stopped being legally qualified. While there is no doubt that legally-trained lord chancellors haven't always got it right in the past, I find it hard to believe that a lawyer would have allowed the relentless de facto attack on injured people and indifference to access to justice we've seen over recent years. And I really find it hard to believe a Lord Chancellor with a legal background would ever countenance the suggestion that court fees should actually generate profit in civil cases, as has been suggested in a recent Government consultation. I hope this suggestion is allowed to run into the sand: justice for Government profit rather than justice at cost is a line which should not be crossed. The Government should be ashamed of itself for contemplating it.<br />
<br />
<h3>
APIL Campaigning</h3>
<br />
Turning now to our campaign agenda, we have already made a good start this year with the launch in Parliament of our campaign to help people who suffer psychiatric harm after the death or injury of their loved ones - a very timely campaign, coming as it does in the year of the 25th anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster. The law as it stands puts almost insurmountable obstacles in the way of the people who are already suffering so much and who need help and compensation to help set their lives back on track.<br />
<br />
Why does the law only assume there is a close tie of love and affection between spouses, parents and children or fiancés? What about brothers, sisters, grandparents, close friends? Why does the law prescribe that the cause of the psychiatric injury has to be 'shocking', and that the person who has suffered mental harm to be 'close in time and space' to the incident? Society has developed in the 25 years since Hillsborough, as has medical knowledge of mental illness - it's high time the law caught up.<br />
<br />
Who could be more vulnerable than some patients in the care of the NHS? So how dangerous would it be to remove the protection the law provides for such vulnerable people? The <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/285325/The_Medical_Innovation_Bill.pdf" target="_blank">Medical Innovation Bill</a>, devised by Lord Saatchi, seeks to protect doctors from litigation when they use innovative techniques on their patients.<br />
<br />
The Bill is being painted by the formidable Saatchi PR machine as a way to cure cancer through legislation. Anyone losing a loved one to cancer deserves great sympathy, and not least Lord Saatchi, but this cannot be a passport to bad law. What evidence is there that a cure for cancer has not been found because doctors are so afraid of litigation that they won’t use innovative techniques? Doctors are innovative all the time. I'm not aware of a doctor being sued for failing to innovate. This Bill went nowhere as a Private Members' Bill but is now the subject of Government consultation and an enormous amount of PR hype.<br />
<br />
It has captured the imaginations of patients who have no idea that it is effectively a license for doctors to play God. Most patients wouldn't realise that there are already many checks and balances in the system to help protect them from any kind of malpractice. The Bill appears to make no sense to those who are informed about the issues involved yet the Government is picking it up and appears to be running with it. We can only wonder why. We are talking to others about what can be done to ensure that patient safety is not jeopardised by this Bill.<br />
<br />
But it is just as important to use our knowledge of claims against the NHS to help in our campaigns to prevent needless injury. For example, between 80 and 95 per cent of pressure ulcers can be avoided if simple procedures are carried out by health professionals. Pressure ulcers are painful, debilitating, and completely avoidable in terms of human suffering and expense to the NHS and yet the level to which this issue is being taken seriously in the NHS varies wildly from Regional Trust to Regional Trust. Our campaign will seek to avoid this needless suffering by calling for a uniform system of care across the country.<br />
<br />
When the worst happens and people are injured, they must have a fair outcome and we must continue our fight to put an end to shady, unethical deals which make the injured person doubly vulnerable. APIL's tenacious lobbying efforts have started to generate some good results here, and the Government appears to have been persuaded that pre-medical offers in RTA soft tissue injury cases should become a thing of the past. Our job now is to keep up the pressure and see this through to the end, as it continues to be resisted by the ABI at every turn.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Workplace Health & Safety</h3>
<br />
Workers who suffer at the hands of employers who are more interested in profit than the safety and health of their employees are also incredibly vulnerable. This is now a greater concern following the introduction of the <a href="http://john-spencer.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/section-69-of-enterprise-and-regulatory.html">Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act.</a> At a time when HSE inspections are subject to swingeing cuts, the Act is a charter for rogue bosses who may be tempted to flout regulations in the double comfort of knowing that they are both unlikely to be prosecuted and that it will now be easier for them to avoid meeting their responsibilities to injured workers under the civil law.<br />
<br />
We need to start thinking about real deterrents to persuade employers to take health and safety seriously and to understand that a safe workforce is an efficient, motivated workforce. And when employees are injured through no fault of their own, they should have the comfort of knowing that they can make a claim without the fear of losing their jobs, or of being placed under pressure by their employers not to make a claim.<br />
<br />
Research we have commissioned has shown us that 80 per cent of those asked think the system for payment of bereavement damages is fairer in Scotland than in England and Wales. This is another issue which we have already broached with the Government and which we will be developing over the next year and beyond. With these issues, it will always take time to achieve results. We know that from experience. We also know that it will be necessary to negotiate, and sometimes to take things step by step. But we will be resolute and tenacious.<br />
<br />
We must remember, too, that it is not just practitioners and injured people in England and Wales who are subject to fundamental, far-reaching and potentially damaging reforms. Colleagues in Scotland have been involved in a monumental battle against Government plans to increase the jurisdiction limit of the sheriff court from £5,000 to £150,000.<br />
<br />
There is much in the Scottish Government's broad sweep of proposals which we can support, but removing almost all personal injury claims from the Court of Session isn't one of them. There are genuine fears that the Court of Session - the very court which gave us the first instance decision in <a href="http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1932/100.html" rel="" target="_blank">Donoghue v Stevenson</a> - will effectively end as a court of first instance for personal injury and that the system which remains will not be properly resourced, leaving injured people - again - the losers.<br />
<br />
Last year in Northern Ireland, the county court limit was increased from £15k to £30k and we're already hearing that this has decimated the High Court in terms of its quota of personal injury cases, and county court judges are struggling to get up to speed. Injured people and their representatives right across the United Kingdom are facing similar problems so it is really important that we all learn from each other, and that we stand together.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Putting injured people at the heart of everything we do</h3>
<br />
I spoke earlier about the need for help and compensation. Putting injured people at the heart of everything we do means more than providing them with the financial resources they need to get back on their feet. We must do a lot more to promote the use of rehabilitation, and to defend its use in the face of insurance industry attacks, whenever necessary.<br />
<br />
Early rehabilitation, especially in catastrophic injuries, can make a huge difference to a patient's recovery, which should be what everyone wants - lawyers, insurers and the NHS. It is certainly what the injured person wants. Rehabilitation obviously costs money, which is why some insurers are so reluctant to proceed. But the prospect of paying less in damages if the injured person makes a good recovery should provide the necessary incentive, even if the prospect of just doing what is right does not.<br />
<br />
And why should the NHS and local authorities, and ultimately the taxpayer, often end up picking up the tab for rehabilitation when the wrongdoer should pay for it? The recoupment of costs in this field is in need of urgent reform which is long overdue. Rehabilitation in hospitals is designed only to get people to the point of discharge, which is a long way short of full recovery. It can then be far too long before local authorities step in to help, by which time the patient’s progress may have stalled. Reform to ensure the wrongdoer pays to get the injured person back on his feet through a combination of both early rehabilitation and compensation has to be the way forward.<br />
<br />
In addition to all these areas to which we will now turn our attention we will, of course, see to the end the work we have been doing to improve the efficiency of our system for bringing mesothelioma claims; to improve medical reporting and diagnosis of whiplash claims, and to develop a system of data sharing to help fight fraud.<br />
<br />
So, let us do what we do best. Let's make sure our businesses are in the best shape they can be so that we can fulfil a truly unique purpose - helping injured people through our knowledge of the law. Let's make sure injured people receive from APIL members the very highest standard of professional representation.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.apil.org.uk/accredited-lawyers" target="_blank">APIL's accreditation scheme</a> has been running now for 15 years. Only recently it received very high praise from the Legal Services Consumer Panel. It is one of the best accreditation schemes available for lawyers who want to improve the way they work and to help injured people recognise the level of service and expertise they can expect from an APIL member. It is an accreditation scheme to be proud of. It is well supported by our members but I would like to see every member of this organisation getting involved and committing to raising their professional standards even higher. <br />
<br />
As an association, we will pursue without apology the right course for the injured person at every turn. We will continue to engage with other organisations with similar interests because we know that together, our voices can be stronger. As individuals we will be the best we can be for the people who need our help.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Professionalism</h3>
<br />
Professionalism is not about rules and regulations, or even compliance. At its heart it's about integrity and complete commitment, which is never more important than when representing an injured person. We will never cease to make this point at every opportunity. We will never cease to expose every shoddy agenda which puts profit before people.<br />
<br />
Being a member of APIL is a badge of honour. Let us wear it with pride.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.spencerssolicitors.com/about-spencers-solicitors/management-team.html#JohnSpencer" target="_blank">John Spencer</a><br />
President, Association of Personal Injury Lawyers<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.spencerssolicitors.com/blog/post/2014/05/01/john-spencer-appointed-president-of-the-association-of-personal-injury-lawyers.aspx" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="Photo of John Spencer inaugural APIL President speech" border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jUpaxx74nNw/U2OHgUolRKI/AAAAAAAAATE/rkwkW7XZDPU/w852-h618-no/2014-05-01-JPS-APIL-+Speech-Crop.jpg" height="290" title="John Spencer inaugural speech - Photo by Cheryl Abrahams on Twitter" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">John Spencer inaugural speech - Photo by <a href="https://twitter.com/CherylAbrahams/status/461860409289740288" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Cheryl Abrahams on Twitter</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-312873295101305388.post-52487383174618776912014-04-08T09:51:00.000+01:002014-04-08T09:51:31.326+01:00Time for a National Asbestos Eradication PlanIn the summer of 2013 <a href="http://john-spencer.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/its-time-to-adopt-australian-example.html" target="_blank">I wrote about Australia's attitude to asbestos</a>. Specifically, I mentioned that on 3 June 2013 the Australian Federal Parliament passed legislation to implement the Asbestos Safety and Eradication bill. In accordance with this, the National Strategic Plan for Asbestos Awareness and Removal 2013 - 2018 (NSPAAR) was released by the Australian Government on 31 July 2013.<br />
<br />
I mention this again now because I believe it is high time for Britain to adopt the Australian example.<br />
<br />
<h3>
The Australian blueprint</h3>
<br />
<a href="http://asbestossafety.gov.au/national-strategic-plan-asbestos-awareness-and-management" target="_blank">NSPAAR</a> is the first scheme of its kind. It establishes a national approach to asbestos eradication, handling and awareness in Australia, the aim being to prevent exposure to asbestos fibres in order to eliminate asbestos-related disease once and for all. It is underpinned by annual operational elements which will be approved by the federal minister with responsibility for workplace relations.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/huskyte/7702377398/" imageanchor="1" rel="nofollow" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Danger Asbestos in this Area" border="0" src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7261/7702377398_c914d69788.jpg" title="Danger Asbestos in this Area by Michael Theis via Creative Commons" /></a></div>
<br />
All in all, NSPAAR marks an historic step, with Australia becoming the first nation to progress tangibly towards the complete elimination of asbestos-related disease. It is something of which Australians can rightly be proud - and surely it amounts to a blueprint that we in Britain could and should follow?<br />
<br />
<h3>
Report by UK Committee on Carcinogenicity</h3>
<br />
This seems all the more pressing given the findings of the UK Committee on Carcinogenicity, which published a report in June 2013. The report cited findings that children exposed to asbestos are more vulnerable to the development of mesothelioma than adults. Further, the lifetime risk of developing mesothelioma is predicted to be around 3.5 times greater for a child exposed to asbestos aged five compared to an adult first exposed at age 25, and five times greater for a child exposed aged five compared to an adult first exposed at age 30.<br />
<br />
The Department for Education's own guidance states that more than <a href="http://www.spencerssolicitors.com/about-spencers-solicitors/asbestos-in-schools.html" target="_blank">three quarters of schools in England have at least some buildings that contain asbestos</a>. There has been no survey into the condition of this asbestos, however, so the scale of the problem has never been specifically addressed.<br />
<br />
This report motivated a group of MPs to table and support an EDM on 10 March 2013 which welcomed the Department for Education's policy review for the management of asbestos in schools. The EDM also cited the evidence given to the Education Select Committee by a leading epidemiologist that between 200 and 300 people could die each year from exposure to asbestos experienced as a child at school. The motion called on the government to look to Australia and its National Strategic Plan for asbestos as a blueprint to establish long-term strategic policies for the eradication of asbestos disease and to set systems, timelines and processes for the safe removal of asbestos materials from public and commercial buildings - with priority being given to schools.<br />
<br />
<h3>
APIL's endorsement</h3>
<br />
The need for a long-term approach most recently gained support from APIL in its <a href="http://www.apil.org.uk/press-release/Short-term-Government-approach-could-lead-to-long-term-health-problems" target="_blank">excellent and thought provoking response to Department of Education's review</a>. This was published last month and it's well worth repeating:<br />
<br />
The seriousness of asbestos exposure appears to be under-appreciated, because the effects of such exposure do not develop until many years later. As such, the current government policies in place are piecemeal and largely involve asbestos remaining in situ with little regard for whether it would actually be safer (and indeed more economic in the long run) for it to be removed. There is often a lack of clarity as to which body is ultimately responsible for asbestos management in the school in question. It is even unclear, for example, which government is responsible for asbestos management for schools in Wales.<br />
<br />
The short term outlook and lack of clarity over responsibility mean that the current policies are unsatisfactory, and will put children, and those who work in schools, at risk. There must be a movement from a reactive to a proactive approach. This must be a co-ordinated approach for the whole of the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
As an organisation that promotes safety against hazards, APIL supports the call for:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Clearer and greater central responsibility for tackling the problem of asbestos in schools;</li>
<li>Investment into locating asbestos, and into air sampling to gain necessary information about the scale of the problem. The location of asbestos should be registered and should be made available for those in school. Where appropriate, asbestos can be left in situ or encapsulated, but if necessary - where there is dilapidation, for example - the asbestos should be taken away safely before it is accidentally disturbed and there is a serious risk to health; </li>
<li>Reintroduction of proactive inspections for schools; </li>
<li>Mandatory training and raised awareness of asbestos for those who work in schools; </li>
<li>A long-term plan for phased removal of asbestos needs to be carefully considered. Priority should be given to those schools where the asbestos is in the most dangerous or damaged condition. </li>
</ul>
<br />
<h3>
The DoE has an opportunity to lead the way to a better future</h3>
<br />
Let us hope this opportunity is not missed by the present UK government. The DoE can be the start of a significant, necessary and overdue strategy to protect the next generation and reduce risk, starting as it should in our schools and with our children.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-312873295101305388.post-90123003772086864252014-03-24T14:09:00.001+00:002014-03-24T14:09:52.073+00:00Equal pay means breaking the glass ceilingAn interesting press release came my way today. It's from specialist legal recruiter <a href="http://www.laurencesimons.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Laurence Simons</a>. Its subject has resonance not just to lawyers but beyond the legal profession.<br />
<br />
According to research conducted among 383 UK lawyers between 7 October and 4 November 2013, of which 57% were male, female lawyers practising in the UK are paid £45,884 less per year than their male counterparts.<br />
<br />
The report, which took in both in-house and private practice lawyers, found that men received total remuneration of £160,009 in 2013, compared with £114,125 for women. That's a gap of 29%. The report states that this gap has narrowed by 3% over the past year, from its previous figure of 32%. During this period, men have seen a fall in total remuneration of £2,700 from £162,689, while women have seen a £2,800 rise in total pay from £111,293 seen in 2012.<br />
<br />
<h3>
The pay gap applies to salaries and bonuses</h3>
<br />
Laurence Simons' report points out that the current gap is evident across both bonuses and salaries. Female lawyers received an average basic salary of £93,248 in 2013, compared to £120,458 for men. In terms of bonuses women received an average of £20,877 in 2013, while men received almost 50% more at £39,551 on average.<br />
<br />
The statistics make for intriguing reading - but so too does another facet of the report. It emerges that despite the pay imbalance, satisfaction is almost equal between the genders with 65% of female lawyers stating that they were either 'satisfied' or 'highly satisfied' with the bonus received - only marginally lower than the 66% of men who agreed with this.<br />
<br />
For Chris Cayley, EMEA Managing Director of Laurence Simons, there is reason to be cheerful given the results of his company's report. "It is very encouraging that headway is being made to redress the imbalance in pay between the genders," says Cayley. "The UK is, of course, one of the legal centres for legal services globally and it is essential that this disparity in pay is resolved if we are to attract and retain the cream of legal talent."<br />
<br />
<h3>
A pay gap between sexes is baffling</h3>
<br />
I agree - to a point. I'd say that it is encouraging rather than very encouraging to see the pay gap between sexes diminish. But, in truth, that there is a pay gap at all remains baffling. We live and work in the early 21st century. We live in an enlightened society which rightly does not question equal rights and, indeed, protects them on the statute books. Why, then, is there any kind of pay gap? How on earth can it be justified?<br />
<br />
No less intriguingly, Laurence Simons' report also reveals that female lawyers feel more secure in their jobs, at 96%, compared with 86% of males. Against this, slightly more men than women are optimistic about the economy over the coming year (67% of men compared with 60% of women). Overall, optimism is high.<br />
<br />
That's good - but how optimistic can we be that next year's report by Laurence Simons will reveal that the pay gap between men and women has shrunk to invisibility? This dismaying truth is 'not very'.<br />
<br />
But this is what we should all be aiming for. The glass ceiling has no place in law firms - and no place in society as a whole.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-312873295101305388.post-67275811297514903122014-03-14T08:42:00.000+00:002014-03-14T08:42:09.315+00:00Lies, damned lies, and statistics: how insurers distort the truth about whiplash claims<p>If we believe what the insurance industry tells us, by means of its <a href="https://www.abi.org.uk/News/News-releases/2013/10/Increase-the-small-claims-limit-needed-as-part-of-the-Government-crackdown-on-whiplash" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">adept PR machine</a> and a <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/cars/article-2168635/Whiplash-Britain-Personal-injury-claims-rise-18-year.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">credulous media</a>, there's barely anyone out there who <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/insurance/motorinsurance/9009632/Six-in-10-doctors-report-increase-in-whiplash-injuries.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">hasn't made a claim for a whiplash injury</a>. We're all at it. No sooner do we feel a twinge in our necks and off we go to make a claim. That's what the Association of British Insurers would have us believe, anyway.</p>
<p>The truth, though, is somewhat different. Anecdotally, the ABI's protestations just don't add up - look around the people you know, and you'll struggle to find someone who’s made a whiplash claim - and more to the point, its campaign to stigmatize whiplash is deeply wrong. Whiplash hurts, and is real: if you've been injured through no fault of your own, and as a consequence suffer from whiplash, you ought to be able to obtain compensation.</p>
<p>
But even more pertinently, recent figures released by the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/cru" target="_blank">Compensation Recovery Unit</a> show that far from being on the rise, whiplash claims are actually decreasing.</p>
<h3>Whiplash claims are dropping</h3>
<p>The CRU has been collating annual statistics on the number of claims made each year for over 20 years. Its work, which came about as a result of the Social Security Act, started in 1990. A key element of the CRU's work is compulsory reporting: if an individual claims compensation from a compensator, which in the majority of cases would be an insurance company, the insurer or other paying party must at once inform the CRU.</p>
<p>The CRU's stringent reporting requirements make it a very reliable source of data. They provide a remarkable portrait of a society which, far from facing a litigation crisis engendered by 'cash-hungry claimants', is holding steady in terms of claims formally commenced and entering the legal process. David Cameron may have opined that "We simply cannot go on like this", but, in truth, the CRU statistics indicate that it would be no bad thing if we carried on much as we are. Not least when we look at the table below:</p>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse: collapse; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; mso-yfti-tbllook: 160;">
<tbody>
<tr style="height: 20.25pt; mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-irow: 0;">
<td style="border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; height: 20.25pt; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; width: 64.35pt;" width="86"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; height: 20.25pt; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; width: 67.25pt;" width="90"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<b><span style="color: #1f497d; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Whiplash claims</span></b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; height: 20.25pt; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; width: 40.65pt;" valign="top" width="54"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; height: 20.25pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 69.2pt;" width="92"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<b><span style="color: #1f497d; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Motor claims</span></b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; height: 20.25pt; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; width: 49.65pt;" valign="top" width="66"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; height: 20.25pt; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; width: 60.55pt;" width="81"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<b><span style="color: #1f497d; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">All claims</span></b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; height: 20.25pt; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; width: 60.55pt;" valign="top" width="81"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 20.25pt; mso-yfti-irow: 1;">
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; height: 20.25pt; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; width: 64.35pt;" width="86"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<b><span style="color: #1f497d; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">2008/09</span></b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; height: 20.25pt; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; width: 67.25pt;" width="90"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #1f497d; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">486,194</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; height: 20.25pt; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; width: 40.65pt;" valign="top" width="54"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; height: 20.25pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 69.2pt;" width="92"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #1f497d; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">625,072</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; height: 20.25pt; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; width: 49.65pt;" valign="top" width="66"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 18.0pt; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; height: 20.25pt; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; width: 60.55pt;" width="81"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 18.0pt; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #1f497d; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">812,348</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; height: 20.25pt; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; width: 60.55pt;" valign="top" width="81"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 18.0pt; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 20.25pt; mso-yfti-irow: 2;">
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; height: 20.25pt; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; width: 64.35pt;" width="86"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<b><span style="color: #1f497d; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">2009/10</span></b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; height: 20.25pt; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; width: 67.25pt;" width="90"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #1f497d; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">518,563</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; height: 20.25pt; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; width: 40.65pt;" valign="top" width="54"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #1f497d; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">+ 6.65%</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; height: 20.25pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 69.2pt;" width="92"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #1f497d; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">674,997</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; height: 20.25pt; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; width: 49.65pt;" valign="top" width="66"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 13.8pt; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #1f497d; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">+ 7.98%</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; height: 20.25pt; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; width: 60.55pt;" width="81"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 13.8pt; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #1f497d; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">861,325</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; height: 20.25pt; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; width: 60.55pt;" valign="top" width="81"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 13.8pt; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #1f497d; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">+ 6.03%</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 20.25pt; mso-yfti-irow: 3;">
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; height: 20.25pt; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; width: 64.35pt;" width="86"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<b><span style="color: #1f497d; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">2010/11</span></b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; height: 20.25pt; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; width: 67.25pt;" width="90"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #1f497d; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">571,111</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; height: 20.25pt; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; width: 40.65pt;" valign="top" width="54"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #1f497d; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">+ 10.1%</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; height: 20.25pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 69.2pt;" width="92"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #1f497d; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">790,999</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; height: 20.25pt; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; width: 49.65pt;" valign="top" width="66"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 13.8pt; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #1f497d; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">+ 17.2%</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; height: 20.25pt; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; width: 60.55pt;" width="81"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 13.8pt; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #1f497d; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">987,381</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; height: 20.25pt; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; width: 60.55pt;" valign="top" width="81"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 13.8pt; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #1f497d; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">+ 14.64%</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 20.25pt; mso-yfti-irow: 4;">
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; height: 20.25pt; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; width: 64.35pt;" width="86"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<b><span style="color: #1f497d; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">2011/12</span></b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; height: 20.25pt; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; width: 67.25pt;" width="90"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #1f497d; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">547,405</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; height: 20.25pt; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; width: 40.65pt;" valign="top" width="54"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #1f497d; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">- 4.15%</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; height: 20.25pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 69.2pt;" width="92"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #1f497d; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">828,489</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; height: 20.25pt; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; width: 49.65pt;" valign="top" width="66"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #1f497d; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">+ 4.74%</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; height: 20.25pt; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; width: 60.55pt;" width="81"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #1f497d; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">1,041,150</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; height: 20.25pt; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; width: 60.55pt;" valign="top" width="81"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #1f497d; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">+ 5.44%</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 20.25pt; mso-yfti-irow: 5; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes;">
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; height: 20.25pt; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; width: 64.35pt;" width="86"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<b><span style="color: #1f497d; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">2012/13</span></b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; height: 20.25pt; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; width: 67.25pt;" width="90"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #1f497d; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">488,281</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; height: 20.25pt; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; width: 40.65pt;" valign="top" width="54"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #1f497d; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">- 10.8%</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; height: 20.25pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 69.2pt;" width="92"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #1f497d; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">749,555</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; height: 20.25pt; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; width: 49.65pt;" valign="top" width="66"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #1f497d; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">- 9.53%</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; height: 20.25pt; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; width: 60.55pt;" width="81"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #1f497d; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">1,048,309</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; height: 20.25pt; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; width: 60.55pt;" valign="top" width="81"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #1f497d; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">+ 0.69%</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<h3>Spin and reality</h3>
<p>Whiplash claims have dropped markedly of late. Confronted by this, insurers claim that the fall in whiplash claims is due to injuries not being referred to as whiplash in CRU1 forms. However, this is misconceived. The fact there has been a fall in RTA claims as well as whiplash claims means that the fall is genuine: if it was simply a reclassification issue, RTA claims would be stable and whiplash falling. In addition, the fact that there has been a 10% drop seems to suggest that the majority of the fall in RTA claims may be due to a fall in whiplash claims.</p>
<p>Moreover, as I mentioned, the CRU1 form is completed by the compensator, which, in all but a few cases, is the insurer. This means any reclassification of whiplash injuries is therefore due to insurer reclassification rather than claimant representatives.</p>
<h3>A touch of irony</h3>
<p>Two other points are worth making. The insurance industry has been very happy to use the whiplash figures as produced by the CRU in previous estimates to justify its claims about the number of whiplash claims. I am sure I am not alone in finding it more than a little ironic that insurers feel that there are problems with the figures only when they start to fall.</p>
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d5/Ralph_Waldo_Emerson_ca1857_retouched.jpg/150px-Ralph_Waldo_Emerson_ca1857_retouched.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="Ralph Waldo Emerson Photo" border="0" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d5/Ralph_Waldo_Emerson_ca1857_retouched.jpg/150px-Ralph_Waldo_Emerson_ca1857_retouched.jpg" title="Ralph Waldo Emerson via wikipedia" /></a>
<p>Finally, the whiplash figures reflect each claim where the word 'whiplash' is included in the injury field. As such, if you consider a whiplash claim to simply be for that injury and that injury only, it is likely to be an over-representation of whiplash claims. For example, someone who suffers a broken leg, a broken arm, psychological injuries and whiplash will be included in the CRU whiplash figures.</p>
<p>In fact, work undertaken by colleagues here at Spencers suggests that only 60% of injuries involving whiplash are whiplash only (with 30% being whiplash and other soft tissue injuries and 10% being whiplash with multiple injuries, including broken bones).</p>
<p>The American 19th century essayist and philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson once said 'Reality is a sliding door'. His words have a great deal of resonance when it comes to whiplash and how it's dealt with by the insurance industry.</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-312873295101305388.post-41832710901038478682014-03-12T08:38:00.000+00:002014-03-12T08:38:14.665+00:00 Low pre-medical offers result only in injustice, the ABI should put a stop to themLast month I attended a conference at Victoria Park Plaza in London hosted by Post Events entitled 'Motor Claims 2014'. Being at the conference prompted some thoughts about motor claims which I shall look at over the next couple of blogs.<br />
<br />
First up, I'd like to talk about pre-medical offers, or, as the insurance industry calls this practice, 'third party assistance'.<br />
<br />
Third party assistance happens when insurers make direct contact people who have potential claims. According to the Association of British Insurers (which has a <a href="https://www.abi.org.uk/~/media/Files/Documents/Publications/Public/Migrated/Motor/ABI%20code%20of%20practice%20-%20third%20party%20assistance.ashx" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">code for its members on the practice</a>), insurers contact people in this way for benign reasons. As the ABI put it in 2009, in a statement which is still on its website and therefore must be taken as policy:<br />
<br />
<h3>
Legal rights? Or legal wrongs?</h3>
<br />
"If an insurer contacts an injured third party it will be to ensure that they get fair compensation and the best possible rehabilitative care more quickly than through the legal process. In doing so, insurers will ensure that the person is fully aware of their legal rights and options.<br />
<br />
"The FSA's guidance, combined with our own code of practice which we will be publishing shortly will ensure that claimants get the best possible deal as quickly as possible. It will also reduce legal costs, which all customers end up paying for through higher premiums."<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/uploadedImages/site-images/adverts/18082-LS-PI-MPU-300x250px-2.gif?n=5888" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="Don't get mugged - The Law Society" border="0" src="http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/uploadedImages/site-images/adverts/18082-LS-PI-MPU-300x250px-2.gif?n=5888" title="Think twice before you accept the first payment you’re offered." /></a>Not to put too fine a point on it, this is ridiculous. Third party assistance only ever renders justice and better rehabilitative care inadvertently. Its sole aim is to buy off claims before the injured person instructs a lawyer.<br />
<br />
Despite the Law Society's recent '<a href="http://www.spencerssolicitors.com/blog/post/2013/07/05/law-society-warns-dont-get-mugged-by-an-insurance-company.aspx" target="_blank">Don't Get Mugged By An Insurer</a>' campaign, not to mention criticism in parliament (MPs, when appraised of the practice of third party assistance, were aghast), insurers have carried on regardless. This was abundantly clear to me following a number of discussions with practitioners at last week’s Motor Claims conference.<br />
<br />
<h3>
The reality of third party assistance </h3>
<br />
Let's be clear about the reality of third party assistance. If conducted skilfully by an insurer's representative, it means that an injured person's claim is settled in the absence of a medical report as to the extent and ramifications of the injuries - and before legal advice has been obtained.<br />
<br />
This cannot be right - and available data reveals just how unjust it is. The Law Society has demonstrated that people who seek a solicitor's advice receive two to three times more compensation than those who accept an insurer's first offer. Moreover, a survey of APIL members in August 2013 showed that overall 25% of respondents indicated that insurers make pre-medical offers in up to one fifth of all claims. Given that in 2012/13 there were 1,048,309 claims (as detailed by Compensation Recovery Unit annual statistics), this means that over 200,000 injured people would be subject to a pre-medical offer.<br />
<br />
Moreover, the continuing practice of making low pre-medical offers fuels the very 'compensation culture' that insurers would have us believe exists. A member of my own firm tells a classic story, in which she was contacted by an insurer within a day of having been in an accident. Fortunately for my colleague, neither she nor her son had been injured - and yet the insurer was straight on the phone, making an offer to settle a claim she might contemplate bringing, for a sum in the region of £3,000.<br />
<br />
Given that insurers themselves do this, is it any wonder that people might start to have an eye for what they can get out of an accident?<br />
<br />
The fact is that an injured person should be encouraged to seek independent legal advice after an accident. Medical evidence is invaluable in assessing the extent of that person's injuries, and should be obtained. It's disingenuous for insurers to contend that they're helping people - 'holding their hands that little bit more', as one insurer put it. Third party assistance, pre-medical offers, whatever you want to call it - the sole aim is to pay a claimant as little as possible. The ABI should adopt greater transparency, admit this and ensure that its members end the practice as soon as possible.<br />
<br />
Next time, I'll discuss something else that doesn't bear scrutiny - the idea that whiplash claims continue to rise.<br />
<br />
<i>**The above piece was also published in <a href="http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/analysis/comment-and-opinion/pre-medical-offers-result-in-injustices/5040312.article" target="_blank">The Law Society Gazette</a> 11th March 2014**</i>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-312873295101305388.post-18981061706152138362014-03-06T08:47:00.000+00:002014-03-06T08:47:53.610+00:00The Importance of Being Ethical - book to be published soonWhat do we mean when we talk about 'ethical behaviour'?<br />
<br />
The question looms large when we look at much of public life in recent years. Scandal after scandal has dominated the front pages, from phone hacking to MPs being less than transparent about their expenses, and each time a familiar refrain is sounded: what happened to the notion of behaving ethically?<br />
<br />
My preoccupation with questions of ethics has led to me doing something I never thought I'd do - writing a book. It's called The Importance of Being Ethical, and it'll be published in a couple of months.<br />
<br />
<h3>
All is not what it seems</h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/The_Importance_of_Being_Earnest_-_Cigarettecase.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="Photograph from Act 1 of the original production of The Importance of Being Earnest (1895)" border="0" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/The_Importance_of_Being_Earnest_-_Cigarettecase.jpg" height="320" title="Photograph from Act 1 of the original production of The Importance of Being Earnest 1895 via wikipedia" width="275" /></a></div>
<br />
The title is an allusion to the great Oscar Wilde play, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Importance_of_Being_Earnest" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The Importance of Being Earnest</a>, which satirises Victorian notions of respectability and duty. To recap, the plot concerns of the love of Gwendolen Fairfax for Ernest - the alter ego of Jack Worthing, who was found in a handbag in the cloakroom of a London railway station by a Mr Thomas Cardew. Despite Jack's inauspicious start in life, he grows up among the landed gentry and is known as a pillar of the community in Hertfordshire, where he has a country estate. He finds his everyday life stultifying, and to escape it engineers a remarkable ruse: a disreputable brother called Ernest, his alter ego. He is always having to save Ernest from some calamity or other but Ernest, of course, does not exist.<br />
<br />
Jack is a hypocrite, a man at ease with his deception. He wants to be perceived as upright and respectable, and has no qualms about his double identity. Gwendolen is no less preoccupied by the veneer of appearances. Obsessed with finding a husband whose name is Ernest - the name "inspires absolute confidence", says Gwendolen - she is unable to see through the deceit of Jack/Ernest.<br />
<br />
The quality of being 'earnest' is uppermost in Wilde's mind. For him, being earnest meant inhabiting a world of false truths, smugness and complacency, a world in which so long as things appear to be alright, then they must be alright. Hence the play's most famous quote, uttered by the snobbish Lady Bracknell to Jack/Ernest: "To lose one parent, Mr Worthing, may be regarded as misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness."<br />
<br />
The play's denouement reveals that appearances are not to be relied upon; that to probe beneath the surface is to find a different story and, in fact, the truth.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Classic Wilde</h3>
<br />
The play is classic Wilde, in that his works are as paradoxical as they are amusing. As well as this, it seems to me to be as relevant today as it was when it was first performed over 100 years ago, on 14 February 1895 at St James's Theatre in London. Wilde still manages to shine a light on the hypocrisy which has come to permeate so many sectors of society.<br />
<br />
So, in my book, I examine ethical dissonance in sport, popular entertainment, public service, the world of business, and, finally (by way of a topic particularly close to my heart), the personal injury sector. Time and again, in these arenas, it seems that appearances disguise a worrying, not say downright unpleasant reality. So long as everything seems to be OK, we ignore standards of professionalism and ethical rigour. But if we strip away the veneer, we find Jack Worthing, and Gwendolen Fairfax, to be alive and well.<br />
<br />
The Importance of Being Ethical is a call to arms for those who believe in sound ethical principles and professionalism, in the concept of putting duty before profit, and for those who, like Jack Worthing, may prove to be Ernest after all. I hope that it will have resonance for anyone who cares about British public - especially those who believe that it is, after all, important to be ethical.<br />
<br />
(And lastly, lest I set myself up for a charge of being less than transparent, the book has been co-written with a professional writer. More soon.)Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-312873295101305388.post-88306634271390458792014-02-13T11:57:00.000+00:002014-02-13T11:59:26.865+00:00If the NHS treated its patients better it wouldn’t have such a large legal billFebruary did not begin in a positive fashion for personal injury lawyers. Well, not if you're a Telegraph reader, and believe everything you read in the press.<br />
<br />
On 1 February, the paper published an article with as loaded a headline as you can get. 'Ambulance-chasers push NHS costs bill to £200m', proclaimed <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/nhs/10612181/Ambulance-chasers-push-NHS-costs-bill-to-200m.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">this piece</a>. It went on to cite figures released by the NHS Litigation Authority, a not-for-profit part of the NHS which manages negligence and other claims against the NHS in England on behalf of its member organisations.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Inflammatory accusations</h3>
<br />
The Telegraph seemed very happy to give some oxygen to the Authority's claims - perhaps because the chance to wield the 'ambulance-chaser' tag in connection with the legal profession was too good to resist. It happily repeated any number of inflammatory accusations - the kind of thing guaranteed to provoke readers over their Saturday breakfasts.<br />
<br />
<i>"Lawyers involved in clinical negligence cases against the NHS are attempting to charge the health service up to £1,400 an hour in costs, leaving taxpayers with a bill of nearly £200 million a year," </i>was one such gem.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/31917220@N07/5893752031/" imageanchor="1" rel="nofollow" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="West Midlands ambulance photo" border="0" height="240" src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5031/5893752031_c0c8133972.jpg" title="Photo by by lydia_shiningbrightly via Creative Commons" width="320" /></a>The Telegraph added that "compensation lawyers are claiming costs and fees worth up to 10 times more than the damages awarded to the patients that they represent." There followed an example which could not but infuriate: "one firm tried to claim £37,000 in costs for a case where the damages paid to the patient were £3,000. The bill was reduced to £3,000 following court action." Then there was yet another: "a London-based firm attempted to charge £1,440 an hour, with total costs of more than £100,000. It eventually accepted an offer of £30,000 in costs."<br />
<br />
It's all quite scurrilous - well, so it seems. After all, how can it be right that claimant solicitors pocketed £196m in fees for claims against the NHS last year? At a time when, as the newspaper put it, "the NHS is facing severe financial pressures."<br />
<br />
The NHS Litigation Authority singled out certain law firms which it believes are particularly guilty of excessive charging. No wonder, for Catherine Dixon, its head, believes that some firms are trying to maximise their profit at the NHS' expense. She argues that the NHS could save £69 million each year if the cost of lawyers representing patients was capped at the same level as the cost of the health service's lawyers, plus an extra 20 per cent.<br />
<br />
<i>"It seems to me that it is out of kilter with the level of damages they are seeking to recover from their clients and defence costs,"</i> she told the paper.<br />
<br />
<i>"I don't think that charging significantly higher costs is appropriate, particularly against a body like the NHS which is looking after the health of the nation.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>"Access to justice is important, and it is right that claimants' solicitors are paid a fair amount for the work they do. But I would rather see the excessive amounts we're spending on costs going into patient care."</i><br />
<br />
<h3>
Maxey on the money</h3>
<br />
The Authority's claims were also aired in <a href="http://claimsmag.co.uk/nhs-litigation-authority-calls-for-cap-on-clinical-negligence-fees/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">this piece in Claims Magazine</a>. At least this time - in contrast to the way the Telegraph covered the story - an opposing view was given. This came from <a href="http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/business-news/managing-partner-at-express-solicitors-james-878491" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">James Maxey of Express Solicitors</a>, who said: "I used to take the angry ambulance chaser jokes in good humour but no longer. I've spent too much time with the families and victims of clinical negligence, some of them with lasting disabilities that words like 'devastating' just cannot convey."<br />
<br />
Mr Maxey is right. He also roundly and rightly rejected Ms Dixon's argument that personal injury claimant lawyers were "front-loading" costs by hiring expert witnesses and conducting extensive investigations for what she believed were relatively low value claims. As Mr Maxey says, due diligence is properly required before any solicitor takes on any claim, as is the appointment of a medical expert. It is absurd to suggest that personal injury claims can be conducted in the absence of this.<br />
<br />
And beyond this, there is a single obvious and damning point. If the NHS treated its patients better, either by not being negligent in the first place or by admitting liability early rather than digging its heels in and contesting meritorious claims, its legal bill would be an awful lot smaller.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-312873295101305388.post-77664080374873859722014-02-05T17:04:00.000+00:002014-02-05T17:04:22.939+00:00The government's U-turn on mesothelioma is wrongThere's something about U-turns that automatically rings alarm bells.<br />
<br />
On the roads, they're banned in almost every circumstance - for a good reason. A driver executing a U-turn goes against the prevailing traffic, causing danger and the risk of an accident.<br />
<br />
Governmental U-turns are no less dangerous. Last week we were confronted with one by Justice Minister Shailesh Vara. It is difficult not to see it as both a disaster and an injustice.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/opendemocracy/575562336/" imageanchor="1" rel="nofollow" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="U-turn sign" border="0" src="http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1405/575562336_1cbdb050cc_o.jpg" height="233" title="Photo by John Palmer - EU summit via Creative Commons" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<h3>
A manifest injustice</h3>
<br />
It transpires that the government has decided to revoke the exemption of mesothelioma claims from the success fee and after the event premium elements of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO). This follows a consultation launched in July last year.<br />
<br />
The consultation was initiated to determine whether sections 44 (on success fees) and 46 (on ATE premiums) of LASPO should be brought into force in relation to mesothelioma claims. Along with many other personal injury practitioners, I was concerned to ensure that they remained exempt. Bringing them into force for mesothelioma claims could only result in a manifest injustice, which was summed up succinctly by my colleague <a href="http://www.apil.org.uk/executive-committee.aspx?ID=3812" target="_blank">Matthew Stockwell</a>, the current president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers. As Matthew put it:<br />
<br />
<i>"It's impossible to rationalise why dying people should have to pay for the inherent risks of pursuing redress, when they certainly never asked to be in a position where they need compensation.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>"Mesothelioma claimants know they are going to die, and they know they have to race against the clock when they make a claim. They are simply trying to make their last few months more bearable, and to ensure that their families will have some security when they're gone. If ever a claimant needed full compensation, it is surely the claimant facing a death sentence just because he turned up for work."</i><br />
<br />
<h3>
Adding to the distress of sufferers</h3>
<br />
Matthew's sentiments are absolutely right. Moreover, <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm140129/halltext/140129h0002.htm" target="_blank">Shailesh Vara's declaration</a> that "the Government carried out the section 48 review as part of the consultation on reforming mesothelioma cases, which concluded on 2 October 2013" and that, as a result, the government has "concluded that they intend to apply sections 44 and 46 of the LASPO Act to mesothelioma cases" comes across as dry and insensitive to the point of indifference.<br />
<br />
This feeling is bolstered by the Justice Minister's additional statement. He said that the government understands “mesothelioma victims face an appalling and fatal disease with which they and their families have to come to terms, while also having to engage with the claims process. Without in any way seeking to minimise the distress this entails, however, there are many other serious personal injury and fatal claims, to which the LASPO reforms already apply, that produce difficult challenges for victims and families."<br />
<br />
What is this statement, other than one which minimises, if not enhances, the distress of mesothelioma sufferers and their families?<br />
<br />
To her credit, Conservative MP Tracey Crouch has joined with Labour MPs in saying that a proper review has not been carried out. Shadow justice minister Andy Slaughter has also urged the Justice Minister to conduct another consultation. We can only hope that sense, justice and fairness prevail, and that the government reverses its decision. For once, that would be a U-turn that makes sense.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-312873295101305388.post-85563005030690086072014-01-28T13:38:00.002+00:002014-01-28T13:38:53.238+00:00Channel 5’s idea for a PI lawyer 'Dragon's Den-type programme' belongs in the binLast week, Litigation Futures ran a piece that a number of lawyers wanted to believe was a premature April Fool’s story. Sadly, I know from my own personal experience that <a href="http://www.litigationfutures.com/news/im-in-channel-5-mulls-dragons-den-style-personal-injury-show" target="_blank">the story</a> is not a hoax.<br />
<br />
Step forward, Channel 5, which is considering what legal journalist Neil Rose described as "a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006vq92" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Dragon's Den-style TV programme</a> in which potential claimants try to persuade a panel of lawyers of the strength of their claim."<br />
<br />
Yes, that's right. The channel's in-house development team has come up with the idea of a reality TV show for the personal injury sector. Its letter, circulated to a number of PI firms (including mine), set out the nuts and bolts of the idea:<br />
<br />
<i>"Members of the public (potential claimants) would attend a clinic like setting and then discuss their cases with four of the UK's leading personal injury/negligence lawyers. These cases would range from personal injury to medical negligence to consumer complaints and small claims.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>"The contributor presents their case individually to the each of the lawyers, along with any evidence - photographs, home video, medical reports etc. It is here that the lawyers have the chance to question the claimant and establish the true evidence of the case.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>"The lawyers must be ruthless in their pursuit of the truth if they're going to weed out the genuine, watertight cases of real affected claimants from those who are unreasonable, mislead or simply chancers trying their luck."</i><br />
<br />
<h3>
Touching faith?</h3>
<br />
In some ways, it's tempting to thank Channel 5 for the faith they evidently have in PI lawyers' televisual appeal. It seems they imagine that out here in the real world of toil for injured clients, there is a <a href="http://www.bannatyne.co.uk/about-duncan/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Duncan Bannatyne</a> among us, or, perhaps, a <a href="http://www.karrenbrady.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Karren Brady</a> (panellist from The Apprentice), a lawyer of such charisma (Perry Mason, perhaps! Or Rumpole!) that he or she will hold viewers' attention and help turn the show into a must-see hit.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dullhunk/6630141019" imageanchor="1" rel="nofollow" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Dragon's Den Cast" border="0" src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7142/6630141019_9f58e6c3d5.jpg" title="Photo by Duncan Hull via Creative Commons" /></a></div>
<br />
Channel 5's understanding of the legal process is also almost touchingly naïve. What do its creative minds think will happen to claimants, whose claims have been aired on television, but rejected? Have the words 'conflict of interest' ever been uttered in a Channel 5 commissioning meeting? What of defamation, as claimants lay the blame elsewhere?<br />
<br />
But although such thoughts might prompt a wry smile, we should resist too light a response to this idea. The reason is simple. It flies in the face of the notion of justice.<br />
<br />
The law is not a game. It's not light entertainment. People who have been hurt in accidents aren't fodder for a television show. They're real people who are often fragile and vulnerable. They need help. They need to instruct a solicitor knowing that he or she will do his or her utmost to investigate their claim and obtain the right compensation. The process of instructing a solicitor should not be turned into a sideshow, one of needless extra pressure accompanied by the whir of television cameras, shouts of 'cut' and requests for 'another take, please'.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Into the bin</h3>
<br />
Some time ago I wrote a blog about <a href="http://john-spencer.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/why-become-personal-injury-lawyer.html" target="">why I became a PI lawyer</a>. There were a number of reasons; perhaps the key ones were wanting to help people and having a passion for justice. Nowhere on my list did the phrase 'opportunity to appear on TV' appear.<br />
<br />
As if civil justice isn't under enough threat at present, along comes Channel 5 with its bone-headed idea. The channel's letter went straight into the bin at Spencers. I hope my colleagues in other PI firms up and down the country, large and small, will have the same response.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-312873295101305388.post-41995590991165665652014-01-23T08:57:00.000+00:002014-01-23T08:57:42.617+00:00A sanction too far? Striking a balance between access to justice and the new civil procedure landscapeHow is justice faring post-Jackson?<br />
<br />
We're now well into the new regime that was ushered in last April, when the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO) 2012 became law. LASPO was inspired by <a href="http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/8EB9F3F3-9C4A-4139-8A93-56F09672EB6A/0/jacksonfinalreport140110.pdf" target="_blank">Lord Justice Jackson's review of civil litigation costs</a> and made for the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Review_of_Civil_Litigation_Costs" target="_blank">biggest change</a> to the domestic civil justice system since the Woolf reforms of the 1990s.<br />
<br />
LASPO tried to strike a balance between streamlining civil procedure so that exorbitant and disproportionate costs weren't incurred by legal advisors, and ensuring that clients had proper access to justice. This was always going to be a tough challenge. And, in the wake of the much-publicised costs ruling in <a href="http://www.thelawyer.com/news/practice-areas/litigation-news/coa-rejects-plebgate-appeal-restricts-libel-costs-budget-to-2000/3013081.article" target="_blank">Andrew Mitchell's libel action against The Sun</a>, it is debateable whether the challenge has been best met.<br />
<br />
<h3>
A black letter view</h3>
<br />
To revisit the Mitchell matter, the former government chief whip sued The Sun for libel over its coverage of the notorious '<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24610226" target="_blank">Plebgate</a>' incident. Regrettably his solicitors were late in filing a cost budget ahead of a case management hearing. The court then took a black letter view of the civil procedure rules, holding that Mitchell was to be treated, pursuant to CPR r.3.14, as having filed a costs budget comprising only the applicable court fees. In other words: he was prohibited from exceeding a set costs budget of £2,000.<br />
<br />
There then followed appeals, in which Mitchell's solicitors - who were acting on a no win, no fee basis - sought relief from the court's sanction for non-compliance. It transpired that they had filed a proposed £506,425 costs application on 17 June 2013. This was less than 24 hours before the date of the case management hearing; court rules state that costs budgets must be lodged seven days in advance. The defendant, News UK (parent company of The Sun), had filed its planned £589,558 budget figure for defending the case on 11 June - within the seven-day deadline.<br />
<br />
The attempt to obtain relief from the court's sanction was unsuccessful. The <a href="http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/andrew-mitchell-faces-%C2%A3500000-legal-bill-continue-%C2%A3150000-plebgate-libel-against-against-sun-after" target="_blank">Court of Appeal made its position clear</a>, stating:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sites/default/files/styles/node_image/public/andrew%20mitchell%2022333.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="Andrew Mitchell" border="0" src="http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sites/default/files/styles/node_image/public/andrew%20mitchell%2022333.jpg" height="210" title="Mitchell loses costs ruling in Plebgate libel via Press Gazette" width="320" /></a></div>
<i>"The defaults by the claimant's solicitors were not minor or trivial and there was no good excuse for them. They resulted in an abortive costs budgeting hearing and an adjournment which had serious consequences for other litigants. It seems harsh in the individual case of Mr Mitchell’s claim, [but] if we were to overturn the decision to refuse relief, it is inevitable that the attempt to achieve a change in culture would receive a major setback.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>"In the result, we hope that our decision will send out a clear message. If it does, we are confident that, in time, legal representatives will become more efficient and will routinely comply with rules, practice directions and orders. If this happens, then we would expect that satellite litigation of this kind, which is so expensive and damaging to the civil justice system, will become a thing of the past."</i><br />
<br />
<h3>
Robust - but is it fair?</h3>
<br />
The outcome of the Mitchell ruling is robust - and its effect is being felt across the civil procedure landscape. A great many cases of procedural non-compliance have resulted in rulings that take a dim, not to say intolerant, view of human error. This trend has become so pronounced that a recent headline on the Litigation Futures website sums up the prevailing culture: '<a href="http://www.litigationfutures.com/news/costs-judge-grants-relief-failure-serve-n251-yes-really" target="_blank">Costs judge grants relief over failure to serve N251 - yes, really!</a>'<br />
<br />
It is undoubtedly right that legal representatives smarten up their acts and do their absolute best to comply with procedural timetables. But sometimes extraneous factors intrude; sometimes there are good reasons for a delay; sometimes plain old human error can’t help but arrive on the scene.<br />
<br />
This, to me, is something to be mindful of. The law is an absolute construct, something above and beyond us, before which we are all equal - rightly so. But it deals with people, with human life in all its teeming ambiguity and with all its potential for mistakes; with things that are often coloured grey rather than black and white.<br />
<br />
I worry that too rigorous an application of court sanctions may in some situations deny access to justice to those who need it - clients, who shouldn't be punished for the mistakes of their legal advisors.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-312873295101305388.post-11418354681317025962014-01-17T13:48:00.000+00:002014-01-17T13:48:14.653+00:00When it comes to head injuries in sport, prevention is better than cureThe Six Nations rugby championship is upon us. There are just a couple of weeks to go before the annual battle for oval ball supremacy among England, France, Scotland, Ireland, Wales and Italy. History says the trophy will be heading across the channel: each Six Nations championship held the year after a British Lions tour has been <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/international/six-nations-2014-england-will-hand-france-a-history-lesson-says-nick-easter-9062791.html" target="_blank">won by France</a>. The Lions went on tour in 2013, so maybe the French will be sipping champagne on March 15, when the final matches are played.<br />
<br />
I'm no rugby expert. I can't comment on what the form books says this year, but I enjoy watching the Six Nations - the physicality, speed and athleticism of modern rugby is breath-taking. But one thing I can comment on is the need for the best possible care for any player unfortunate enough to suffer a head injury.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Intense negotiations </h4>
<br />
This is all the more salient given the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/jan/14/judge-rejects-765m-nfl-concussion-lawsuit" target="_blank">news in Tuesday's Guardian</a> about the ongoing legal wrangle between the National Football League and retired NFL players.<br />
<br />
Some 4,000 former players sued the NFL, arguing that the NFL knew about the dangers of on-field head injuries long before it did anything, or enough, about them. It was also alleged that the NFL hadn't adequately assisted injured players once their careers were over.<br />
<br />
Last August, after two months of what were described as "<a href="http://nfl.si.com/2014/01/14/nfl-concussion-lawsuit-settlement-2/" target="_blank">intense negotiations</a>", the parties reached <a href="http://nfl.si.com/2013/08/29/nfl-concussion-lawsuit-settlement/" target="_blank">agreement to settle the litigation</a>. The NFL did not admit liability, but the outline agreement was that the NFL and NFL properties would pay a total of $765 million for injury settlements and medical benefits for retired players. The money would also be used to fund medical and safety research and to pay all litigation expenses.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe class="siVideo" frameborder="0" height="465" scrolling="no" src="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/.element/ssi/dynamic/video-iframe.html?assetid=video_AA9650F0-E3F8-FBDD-2BE9-CB8C317A7ADF" width="100%"></iframe></div>
But <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/jan/14/judge-rejects-765m-nfl-concussion-lawsuit" target="_blank">as the Guardian reports</a>, the $765m settlement has been rejected by a federal judge. Judge Anita Brody is not happy with the level of financial documentation submitted by the parties. She also doubts that the agreed sum will compensate all the retired NFL players who may one day be diagnosed as suffering from a brain injury. She doesn't doubt that the settlement was reached in good faith, but has, in effect, sent the parties back to the drawing board.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Collective Bargaining Agreements</h4>
<br />
Professional sport in Britain is conducted on different lines to the United States, where Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) underpin the majority of sports. I am not a sports lawyer, but my understanding of CBAs is that they exist primarily to ensure that salary caps are in place. Salary caps are intended to keep costs down and create parity between clubs. CBAs also, as I understand it, have a considerable bearing on litigation between the leagues and players. Under the American CBA model, players have discernible rights against leagues, whereas here in Britain sportspeople like rugby and football players are employees of their clubs, not the governing leagues.<br />
<br />
For this reason, threats by England footballers to strike back in 2003 (when they objected to the treatment of Rio Ferdinand over a missed drug test) may have shown admirable camaraderie but had no legal basis.<br />
Likewise, it may be that officials on high in rugby, football and other UK professional sports look across the pond at the NFL litigation and breathe a tentative sign of relief, in the belief that the absence of CBAs here means that huge class actions against the leagues aren't heading their way.<br />
<br />
Perhaps; a sports lawyer will have the answer. But two things are abundantly clear: first, even if the leagues in Britain may not be about to receive a massive head injury class action claim, individual clubs undoubtedly owe a duty of care to their players and could be sued; and secondly, the law is one thing - proper care and due diligence for sportspeople is another.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Prevention is better than cure</h4>
<br />
So, as we look forward to the Six Nations, it strikes me that we should redouble our efforts to ensure that the government takes the lead and sets an example. It should state unequivocally that clubs must, as a priority, ensure that the best possible awareness of the consequences of head injuries exists among everyone from managers and coaches to players and medical staff. Likewise, schools must take the best possible care of pupils who play sports like rugby and football. And similarly, those in charge of the national teams as they go into the Six Nations.<br />
<br />
It's great news, for example, that from next season all professional rugby players will undergo a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/25717530" target="_blank">concussion training programme</a> - but here's hoping the various Six Nations teams will also find time to talk their players about the risks of head injuries before the tournament.<br />
<br />
We all want to see a fast, pulsating and impassioned contest for the Six Nations title. We don't want to see players suffering brain injuries that could have been prevented, which lead to litigation. Prevention is better than cure. Here's hoping that British sport - and its administrators all the way up to the government - wake up to the reality of traumatic head injuries suffered by those playing sport.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-312873295101305388.post-76718079110461804672014-01-08T17:51:00.000+00:002014-01-08T17:51:01.755+00:00Spare a thought for Theo - and Hillsborough's victims, tooSpare a thought for Theo Walcott. The charismatic and talented Arsenal winger didn't seem to be in too much pain when he fell to the turf in last Saturday's FA Cup third round fixture against Spurs, but the gloss of his team's 2-0 victory has been well and truly dented. Walcott, it transpires, has suffered the injury all footballers dread - a <a href="http://theo%20walcott%E2%80%99s%20injury%20reminds%20us%20of%20the%20unsatisfactory%20state%20of%20the%20law%20on%20psychiatric%20injury/" target="_blank">rupture of his anterior cruciate ligament</a>.<br />
<br />
None of us who witnessed Walcott's injury, whether at the Emirates or while watching the game on TV, can be said to have been traumatised by what we saw - not least because Walcott seemed in good spirits as he was carried off the pitch on a stretcher. But as we now learn that the on-form Arsenal star is almost certainly ruled out of the England squad for this summer's <a href="http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/" target="_blank">FIFA World Cup in Brazil</a>, as well as side-lined for the rest of Arsenal's best season in years, only the hardest of heart would not feel sorry for him.<br />
<br />
Walcott, included when 17 years old by Sven Goran Eriksson in the 2006 World Cup in Germany but not selected for a game, was omitted by Fabio Capello for his squad in the 2010 World Cup in South Africa. His <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/jan/06/theo-walcott-arsenal-england-world-cup-blow" target="_blank">terrible luck continues</a>. Even if, miraculously, he recovers swiftly from the operation on his knee, it would surely be a mistake to take him to Brazil.<br />
<br />
<h3>
The effect of witnessing a traumatic event</h3>
<br />
Universally popular, at his club and in the England set-up, Walcott deserves and gets our sympathy. And if we play again, in our mind’s eye, the moment of his injury, it seems that bit worse. We see him wince with pain; we feel it that bit more acutely. As human beings, we empathise.<br />
<br />
If this is what we feel, as spectators confronted by an injury which isn't as bad as, say, <a href="http://youtu.be/5fo6vyFfIdo" target="_blank">Eduardo Da Silva's horrific leg break</a>, isn't it clear that witnessing disturbing events can lead to psychological harm - harm which may be even longer lasting than the physical damage sustained by those immediately affected?<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5fo6vyFfIdo" width="560"></iframe>
</div>
<br />
To me, the answer is a resounding 'yes'. And because of this - and with the 25th anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster approaching, on 15 April this year - it is high time that the law on psychiatric injury is revisited.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Case law since Hillsborough does not square with reality</h3>
<br />
In the wake of Hillsborough case law evolved to a point which does not square with reality. The leading authority is Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310. Here, Alcock and several other claimants were 'secondary victims': they were not primarily affected, in the sense that they were injured or in danger of injury, but they suffered harm because of what they witnessed. But instead of providing for compensation for their traumatic experiences, the Alcock case, which went all the way to the House of Lords' Judicial Committee, imposed a series of "control mechanisms" to fetter a victim's ability to bring a claim.<br />
<br />
Chief among them is the requirement that a claimant must perceive a "shocking event" with his or her own senses, either as an eye-witness or happening upon its immediate aftermath. This means that if a father saw his son crushed via television footage, or if he arrived some 30 minutes after the incident, he would not be able to bring a claim.<br />
<br />
Lord Steyn of Mostyn, in Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455 described the law on recovery for psychiatric harm as "a patchwork quilt of distinctions which are difficult to justify". The so-called 'control mechanisms' have also been described as "more or less arbitrary conditions which a plaintiff had to satisfy and which were intended to keep liability within what was regarded as acceptable bounds".<br />
<br />
Lord Steyn was right. So, as we spare a thought for Theo Walcott, let's also think of Hillsborough's victims and, indeed, the unjust state of the law, that with which anyone tragically caught up in a disaster will be confronted. It's time to revise the law, it's time to unstitch the patchwork quilt, and it's time for parliament to legislate for change.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-312873295101305388.post-11989239864550095932014-01-01T09:00:00.000+00:002014-01-02T13:52:57.965+00:00Three wishes for 2014 (and no more Masters…)<div class="MsoNormal">
Happy New Year to all. Here's
to prosperity, health and peace for all in 2014. Here's also to much-needed
changes in the three following areas:<br />
<b style="text-indent: -27pt;"><br /></b>
<br />
<h3>
1. Women and the glass ceiling.</h3>
<div style="text-indent: 0px;">
<b style="text-indent: -27pt;"><br /></b></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 45.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -27.0pt;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Sadly the glass ceiling is
still there. I'm reminded it lurks, invisibly, in a great many sectors of
society. Women work hard, perform brilliantly and every bit as well as, if not
better than, men, only to find that access to the top positions is often
denied. Whether through patriarchy, or chauvinism, or sexism; on occasion even
through conspiracy. The fact is that women still don’t get a fair deal.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Take, for example, the law.
Today's City firm in London will have a raft of corporate social responsibility
(CSR) programmes and policies, implemented because the firm's partners recognise
that they need to give something back.
And yet for all the CSR, for all the positive PR it yields, often those
very same firms still have partnerships in which men vastly outnumber women. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It is the same in so many
other sectors of the legal profession - which is why the news just before
Christmas that women, for the first time in history, have been recommended for
more judicial posts than men was so welcome. <a href="http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/5039103.article" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The Law Society Gazette reported the news</a>, which comes from statistics released
by the <a href="http://jac.judiciary.gov.uk/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Judicial Appointments Commission</a>.
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/pictures/2000x1300fit/3/9/6/2396_FemaleJudges.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="208" src="http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/pictures/2000x1300fit/3/9/6/2396_FemaleJudges.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Women overtake men in judicial appointments - Law Society Gazette</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It transpires that across 17
selection exercises for court and tribunal posts completed between April and
September in 2013, 280 (52%) of those recommended for appointment were women,
compared with 233 men (30 recommendees declined to identify their gender). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Yes, a judge should attain
his or her role regardless of gender and solely on fitness for the job, but
after centuries in which women have been explicitly or tacitly treated as
second class citizens this news is good, and hopefully the trend will continue
making equality a reality.<br />
<b style="text-indent: -27pt;"><br /></b>
<br />
<h3>
2. Hillsborough and the law on secondary liability.</h3>
</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 45.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -27.0pt;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As a football fan I
thoroughly enjoyed the Boxing Day we've just had, when - for the first time in
an age - every single league team in England was in action, along with all the
teams from the Scottish Premier League. But amid the feast of football, I
couldn't help but think ahead to this year's 25th anniversary of the
Hillsborough disaster. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We all know the facts. At
Sheffield Wednesday's historic ground on 15 April, 1989, 96 fans died in a
terrible crush early on in an FA Cup Semi-Final between Liverpool and
Nottingham Forest. The crush resulted in injuries to a further 766 people.
Those involved ranged from children to the elderly. The tragic incident is
Britain’s worst-ever stadium-related disaster.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But what we don’t all know is
how the law has dealt with the disaster. It was, thanks to the ruling in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcock_v_Chief_Constable_of_South_Yorkshire_Police" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310</a>, a disaster of
its own kind for what the law describes as ‘secondary victims’: those who were
not primarily affected, in the sense that they were injured or in danger of
injury, but who suffered harm because of what they witnessed. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Alcock severely restricts
their ability to bring claims for post-traumatic stress disorder thanks to
arbitrary 'control mechanisms' created by the court. Chief among them is the
requirement that a claimant must perceive a 'shocking event' with his or her
own senses, either as an eye-witness or happening upon its immediate aftermath.
This means that if a father saw his son crushed via television footage, or if
he arrived some 30 minutes after the incident, he would not be able to bring a
claim. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Alcock ruling and its
criteria for recovery for psychiatric harm has been described "a patchwork
quilt of distinctions which are difficult to justify". Set against what we now
know to be the truth of Hillsborough, this is true. We need to revisit Alcock
and campaign for a change in the law so that real justice is available for
victims of psychiatric injury. <a href="https://www.apil.org.uk/press-release/nearly-25-years-after-hillsborough" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">APIL are planning to do just that and they need our every support</a>.<br />
<b style="text-indent: -27pt;"><br /></b>
<br />
<h3>
3. The notion of justice.</h3>
</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 45.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -27.0pt;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Just before Christmas I wrote
of <a href="http://john-spencer.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/fight-against-erosion-of-the-welfare-state.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">War On Welfare's admirable success with its e-petition</a>, which has now garnered
enough signatures for force a parliamentary debate on a number of issues which
affect the sick and disabled, not least the present government's seemingly
obsessive desire to implement cuts in this area. <a href="http://wowpetition.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">WOW's</a> work has been tireless and fantastic,
and we must all do our bit to maintain its momentum, but so too should we
continue to fight the systemic erosion of formerly sacred legal principles with
which the government also seems to be engaged. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I am mindful in particular of
the proposals to <a href="http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/Communications/article/1216307/proposed-changes-judicial-review-a-full-frontal-attack-charity-campaigning/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">reduce the availability of judicial review</a> and the apparently <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/a-rank-denial-of-justice-for-vulnerable-people-senior-judge-attacks-plan-to-cut-legal-aid-by-350m-8882390.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">endless attack on what used to known simply as 'legal aid</a>'.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
What has happened to the
notion of justice? Why is it now so rife with 'cost considerations'? What has
happened to the days of absolute legal principles, with which no government - other than a dictatorship - would dare to tinker?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Three of my wishes for 2014,
then, are for the end of the glass ceiling, due recognition of the rights of
those who suffer psychiatric injury and a restitution of our fundamental
commitment to justice. Oh, and while we're at it, how about a change to
nomenclature in the courts - is the term '<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_(judiciary)" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">master</a>' really what
we need for a judicial officer in the civil justice system, women included? Or is a remnant of the very sexism and unthinking patriarchy that preserves the glass ceiling?</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17122793717237254918noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-312873295101305388.post-25705479353160255612013-12-23T18:08:00.000+00:002013-12-23T18:08:18.612+00:00The WOW factor makes for a good early Christmas present, but we must keep up the fight against the erosion of the welfare stateA year and a half ago I wrote about <a href="http://john-spencer.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/we-must-do-more-for-victims-of-spinal.html">John Burns</a>, a courageous man who, having suffered a terrible water sports accident, had been paralysed from the neck down. I was privileged to hear Mr Burns speak of his experience of spinal cord injury (SCI) at the AGM of the All Party Parliamentary Group on SCI in June, 2012.<br />
<br />
The august surroundings (the AGM was held at Portcullis House in the House of Lords) only made Mr Burns' tale all the more poignant. After his accident, Mr Burns was forced, through lack of any alternative, to live in institutional care. Deprived of his family life, missing anniversary celebrations and seeing his sons grow up, he regarded this as a prison sentence.<br />
<br />
<h4>
We must oppose the war on welfare</h4>
<br />
Listening to Mr Burns was moving and inspirational in equal measure. On the one hand, everyone present admired his courage; on the other, we couldn't help but feel angry at the treatment of those with disability in this country. Time and again those who suffer an SCI are packed off into homes and forced either to use their savings or sell family assets to pay for their treatment. They're forced to live alone, away from their families and friends - despite having worked hard and paid their taxes, and despite Britain's longstanding and much admired commitment to welfare.<br />
<br />
In fact, the present government has been engaged in a war on welfare for some time. If it had its way, the sick and those with disability would be even worse off, thanks to cuts proposed by the Department for Work and Pensions. Our cherished welfare state is under threat as never before.<br />
<br />
But the year could be ending on a positive note - thanks to the WOW factor.<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhsEc_oDUZ6f2yFVZ3YItexr9ABcFipY_g0sknn9bMNtcudomsKbltKYtPbGOwz7SDtug6KP0B118aEghHBV_ZIp3dk4kKXdYookDQqKGRyd7QLRJBlAEfOS_GglIeVM6AIl2H9JkpeS78/s150/wowv2g.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhsEc_oDUZ6f2yFVZ3YItexr9ABcFipY_g0sknn9bMNtcudomsKbltKYtPbGOwz7SDtug6KP0B118aEghHBV_ZIp3dk4kKXdYookDQqKGRyd7QLRJBlAEfOS_GglIeVM6AIl2H9JkpeS78/s150/wowv2g.png" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #210b33; font-family: Merriweather; line-height: 25px; text-align: start;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">#WOWdebate2014 to stop the War on Welfare</span></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
WOW stands for the War on Welfare campaign. Its campaigners ask the government to carry out a <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/war-welfare-petition-100000-sign-2870513" target="_blank">Cumulative Impact Assessment</a> to look at the overall effect of cuts to sick and disabled people, as well and their families and carers. They also ask that MPs are given a free vote on the repeal of the Welfare Reform Act. Other laudable campaign aims are to end the Work Capability Assessment, and the launch of an independent inquiry into issues including charges for care homes, ATOS, and the closure of Remploy factories.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Success for WOW</h3>
<br />
WOW launched an e-petition, supported and submitted by actress and award-winning comedian <a href="http://www.francescamartinez.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Francesca Martinez</a>. In a piece of great news just before Christmas, the petition secured its target of 100,000 signatures with 12 days to spare before it closed. Celebrities including Stephen Fry, Russell Brand and Yoko Ono lent their support and helped garner the momentum for enough signatures to <a href="http://wowpetition.com/" target="_blank">compel a parliamentary debate</a>.<br />
<br />
For Francesca Martinez, the key issue is clear cut. As she puts it: "The Government are using this recession as a cover for implementing cuts and eroding vital services that people fought long and hard for, and we need to get together and protect these crucial support networks."<br />
<br />
I agree whole-heartedly. The government's hostility to the sick and disabled is a disgrace. Moreover, it's a human rights issue. We should all continue to support WOW - for example by <a href="http://wowpetition.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/draft-letter-to-mps-option-2.html" target="_blank">writing to our local MP</a>s. We must do our best to preserve what's good about our society - not stand by and let it be taken away.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-312873295101305388.post-41821802589323196982013-12-18T10:48:00.001+00:002013-12-23T09:37:04.236+00:00We need better education and treatment in sport for concussion – and we need it nowFor many years I enjoyed playing amateur football. I was never going to be good enough to emulate my heroes, the likes of Peter Osgood or Alan Hudson, but like so many enthusiastic players up and down the country I loved the game. And, again like so many grass roots players, I look back on a few moments from my playing days and shudder.<br />
<br />
My retrospective misgivings aren't from memories of open goals missed (or own goals scored). These things happen; if anything, at amateur level they're to be laughed about in the pub afterwards.<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
No,
my misgivings flow from remembering the times when a player suffered a head
injury, usually from a clash of heads as two players competed to head the ball.
One player would take a severe knock (sometimes both of them, in fact). He'd be
on the turf for what seemed an age, only to stagger to his feet and insist that
he was well enough to play on. This was almost always what happened. Only
rarely did a player on the receiving end of a head injury leave the field of
play. Time and again he'd wear his palpable concussion like a badge of honour,
and keep going to the end of the game.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<h3>
<b>Concussion
can be fatal</b></h3>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I
look back on these incidents and shudder because I realise that collective
ignorance – or, perhaps, machismo - had the effect of putting a sportsman's
life at risk.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The
fact is that concussion can be fatal. It can kill soon after the first signs
manifest themselves, or it can kill later in life when the consequence of
repeated trauma to the head turns into CTE - chronic traumatic encephalopathy.
CTE was formerly known as dementia pugilistica - 'the boxer's disease' - but
increasingly studies are revealing that is present in sportspeople from other
sports, including American football and ice hockey.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And,
as Andy Bull's <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/dec/14/rugby-union-concussion-medical-experts" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">excellent article in last Sunday's Observer</a> reveals, rugby. In modern rugby,
the dangers of concussion have grown exponentially as the game has evolved, as
Bull elegantly puts it, "from a contact sport to a collision sport." Concussion
was always a danger in rugby (as it was in football) but today's players are
better conditioned than those of yesteryear. Players are bigger, faster,
stronger – and they hit a lot harder than they used to. Tackles are now "hits",
and YouTube is full of <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8v-qZFVYnc" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">"greatest hits"</a> from both rugby union and league. But to view, say, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWILREWptvs" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">this collection of "hits"</a> is not simply an exercise in admiring the bravery of the contemporary player.
It is also to come away wholly endorsing the argument in Bull's article: that a
sea-change is required in rugby so that players' lives and health are not
unnecessarily risked by the modern game's relentless ferocity.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Bull
has also written of the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/dec/13/death-of-a-schoolboy-ben-robinson-concussion-rugby-union" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">tragic story of 14-year-old Ben Robinson</a>, who, on 29 January 2011, was treated on
three occasions for blows to the head while playing rugby – and on each
occasion sent back onto the pitch to play on. Ben later collapsed and died in
hospital in a case of <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/hugo-lloris-concussion-secondimpact-syndrome-can-kill-8921571.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Second Impact Syndrome</a> (SIS). SIS means that the brain
swells swiftly and catastrophically after a person suffers a second concussion before symptoms from an earlier one have subsided.
SIS is nearly always fatal; if it isn't, it leads to permanent serious
disability.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<h3>
<b>Change has to come from the top</b></h3>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Arguably, today's rugby culture killed poor Ben Robinson,
the culture of hitting hard and playing on. SIS certainly killed him. SIS could
have caused terrible problems for <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24797343" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Hugo Lloris</a>, the Spurs goalkeeper allowed to play on against Everton
in a November fixture, and it will continue to cause terrible problems for any
number of sportspeople until we succeed in implementing a root and branch
change to the way that we regard head injuries in sport.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Head injuries aren't a 'laugh'. It's not amusing to see a
player wobble unsteadily, then regain his senses, then play on. It's not a
tribute to his fortitude. It's foolhardy. The risks are too great, and, as Dr
James Robson, the Scottish rugby union side's chief medical officer, says (in
Bull's <i>Observer</i> piece): "When you get a subject as important as this
[change] has to come from the top. To me that means the government. They are
responsible for the nation's health and that is what we are talking about, the
health of the nation's young people." </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Dr Robson is right. So come on, Mr Cameron, what have you
got to say? If you could tear yourself away from <a href="http://news.sky.com/story/1180483/cameron-and-obamas-selfie-at-mandela-service" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">taking selfies</a> (and <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/10518716/David-Cameron-wants-to-save-Mandela-memorial-selfie.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">worrying about what happens to them</a>) and <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/12/judge-david-cameron-nigella-lawson" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">tweeting about Nigella</a>, perhaps you could endorse the calls
for thorough education and treatment in sport for concussion. Those calls, to
anyone with any sense, are irresistible. </div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17122793717237254918noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-312873295101305388.post-41719285175852369112013-12-11T10:03:00.000+00:002013-12-11T10:03:41.837+00:00Mesothelioma: when a U-turn is a good turnThe term 'U-turn' has negative connotations in politics. It signifies a complete change in direction, an abrogation of policy so pronounced that Margaret Thatcher famously made capital out of its opposite. "The lady's not for turning," said Lady Thatcher, and ever since politicians from a variety of parties have seen this statement not as indicative of blind stubbornness but as a sign of strength.<br />
<br />
But the received wisdom isn't always right. A U-turn can be a good turn. It can indicate due regard for the implications of policy and the acknowledgement that it hasn't been properly thought through. Which - thankfully - is exactly what's happened this week, with the government executing a U-turn when it comes to mesothelioma claims.<br />
<br />
To recap, <a href="http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/type/mesothelioma/" target="_blank">mesothelioma</a> is a disease caused by exposure to asbestos, with a long delay between exposure and developing the disease (often 40 to 50 years). It is nearly always fatal, and some 2,200 people die of it each year in England and Wales. Over the years sufferers have faced a massive battle to obtain compensation, owing either to the difficulty of tracing employers or, indeed, insurers. Another statistic puts this is perspective: 50% of claims for compensation for mesothelioma take over 12 months to settle, which means that sufferers may die before their claims are paid out.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Delay equals injustice</h4>
<br />
For many years campaigners, notably the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL), have called for the government to establish a fund to make sure those left unable to claim can do so. The idea was that contributions from insurers would initiate and sustain the fund which would pay out in circumstances where the employer's insurer could not be traced.<br />
<br />
In parallel insurers came up with the Mesothelioma Pre Action Protocol (MPAP) to replace the existing pre-action protocol for disease and illness (DPAP), which they sought to link with the introduction of the untraced insurers fund. The protocol seemed to the government like a good idea at first blush, a way of dedicating resources to mesothelioma sufferers. The government initially gave its endorsement. But the devil was in the detail. And the more people looked at the detail, the more it seemed that sufferers would receive less money - and have to wait longer for it. The insurers sought to stick to a position which linked the introduction of the fund with the introduction of the protocol.<br />
<br />
<h4>
MPAP: a hindrance not a help</h4>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/image_data/file/19680/s300_shailesh-vara-960x640.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="Shailesh Vara Photo" border="0" src="https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/image_data/file/19680/s300_shailesh-vara-960x640.jpg" title="Courts Minister Shailesh Vara" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Courts Minister Shailesh Vara</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
APIL played a large role in harnessing industry response to the proposed MPAP. It became abundantly clear that mesothelioma sufferers, far from being helped by the MPAP, would be hindered by it. And this week, Courts Minister Shailesh Vara showed that the government is capable of listening, announcing that the government would reject the insurers' proposals.<br />
<br />
Moreover, in news made all the more welcome given that we are two weeks from Christmas, the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/industrial-disease-victims-central-to-changes" target="_blank">government has declared its intention to work with victims' groups</a>, insurers representing employers and others to explore new ways to improve the legal process for handling claims from victims of mesothelioma. In addition, proposals to set standardised payments for lawyers making claims will not, for now, be taken forward. <br />
<br />
The £350m fund to compensate those unable trace the liable employer is being put in place by insurers and the Department for Work and Pensions through the Mesothelioma Bill, but the bottom line remains this: speed is of the essence. Sadly, claimants often have a limited life expectancy. Their claims need to be settled as quickly as possible, for their sake and that of their families. And so, as much as we should welcome this particular U-turn, let's hope it doesn't lead to a cul-de-sac, and that the best possible means of giving redress to mesothelioma claimants is put in place as soon as possible.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-312873295101305388.post-15600364318778023782013-12-04T14:32:00.000+00:002014-06-19T11:33:52.425+01:00In praise of RollonFriday and in horror at a racist American PI firm adGone are the days when the idea of advertising their services would make a firm's partners go into meltdown, but the brave new world isn't always good. Take the below ad, purportedly by American personal injury firm <a href="http://www.mhatty.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">McCutcheon & Hamner</a>.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/X8oagEiRR-8" width="560"></iframe></div>
<br />
I encountered what is surely a contender for worst-ever PI firm ad on today's <a href="http://www.rollonfriday.com/Blogs/ReadBlog/tabid/144/Id/24805/Default.aspx" target="_blank">RollonFriday update</a>. There are those in the legal profession who seem to live in fear of RollonFriday, but I'm not one of them.<br />
<br />
The site, co-founded by former City solicitor Matthew Rhodes (who, in 2011, was awarded an OBE for a RollonFriday initiative that saw laid off City solicitors redeployed to undertake pro bono work), is a scourge of bunkum and pomposity in the law. RollonFriday can't claim to be first to have alerted McCutcheon & Hamner's disastrous ad to the world - that honour goes to the no less estimable <a href="http://abovethelaw.com/2013/11/law-firm-advertising-now-with-more-racism/#more-286556" target="_blank">Above the Law</a>, across the pond - but it has brought it to a UK audience. And what a remarkably awful ad we now behold.<br />
<br />
There is absolutely nothing which is fair, reasonable or even mildly amusing about the ad. It's extraordinary, in today’s world, that any right-thinking person could have signed it off for publication. But that's just what someone, somewhere did - and here the plot thickens.<br />
<br />
As reported by Above the Law, uproar about the ad's overt racism prompted McCutcheon & Hamner to issue its "sincerest apologies" - and claim that its YouTube channel had been hacked. "Our firm did not approve the latest advertising commercial," says the firm. "We apologize to anyone who has watched the commercial. Our IT team has been working all morning to get the commercial taken off YouTube and find the person who is responsible for this action."<br />
<br />
However, Definitive Television - evidently the production company behind the video - are unrepentant. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8oagEiRR-8" target="_blank">Click here</a> to learn of their position: that they were hired to make the film by McCutcheon & Hamner, who knew full well of its content. They accordingly refuse to remove the footage from YouTube. Into the bargain, they add insult to injury by justifying the creation of a character they call Mr Wong Fong Shu. He, like other creations, is apparently "intentionally provocative" and "edgy".<br />
<br />
<span style="line-height: 18px;">What nonsense. The character in the ad isn't "provocative" (another Definite Television argument); he's a nauseating caricature, a slice of racism pure and simple.<br />
<br />
No wonder, with ads like these, that American PI lawyers have a bad name. As if the ambulance-chasing tag isn't bad enough, here racism is thrown into the mix.<br />
<br />
McCutcheon & Hamner are based in Alabama, one of the bastions of the Confederacy. It's disturbing to find evidence that suggests things in the Deep South haven't moved on from the bad old days. And more worrying still is the danger that racists might warm to the ad; that for all the negative PR the firm might actually get some business out of it.<br />
<br />
Let's hope not. And commendations to RollonFriday and Above the Law for making people think.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-312873295101305388.post-24108390582200944842013-11-27T14:13:00.000+00:002013-11-27T14:13:39.513+00:00When it comes to head injuries in sport, we can learn a lot from looking to America<a href="http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11675/9041526/gary-mabbutt-defends-tottenham-goalkeeper-hugo-lloris" target="_blank">Hugo Lloris</a> returned to the Tottenham Hotspur line-up on Sunday, but not to the kind of game he'd have liked. The Frenchman has been in the wars lately, with a controversial head injury in his team's fixture against Everton on 3 November. The last thing he would have wanted was to be on the end of a <a href="http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11675/9040269/andre-villas-boas-embarrassed-after-tottenham-lose-6-0-to-manchester-city" target="_blank">6-0 drubbing by an effervescent Manchester City frontline</a>.<br />
<br />
But at least Lloris was fit to play. Too often, this is not the fate of sportspeople who suffer head injuries. The tragic example of American high school football player Charles Youvella is a case in point. Just over two weeks ago, Youvella <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/highschool/2013/11/12/arizona-charles-youvella-hopi-high-school-keams-canyon/3503489/" target="_blank">died after sustaining a head injury</a> while playing a game in the Arizona Interscholastic Association.<br />
<br />
By all accounts a brave and talented player, Youvella's injury came in a Saturday night game, when he was felled by what witnesses described as a 'routine football tackle'. Routine it may have been, but the back of the young man's head hit the ground with considerable velocity. Two days later, on Monday 11 November, Youvella was dead of a traumatic brain injury - notwithstanding, in uncomfortable echoes of the Lloris incident, the fact that immediately after the initial impact he got to his feet and lined up for two more plays.<br />
<br />
<object classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,47,0" height="351" id="flashObj" width="576"><param name="movie" value="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isSlim=1" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><param name="flashVars" value="videoId=2830617271001&playerID=2207682275001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAABvaL8JE~,ufBHq_I6Fnwgpz2JFHz_Jerf-MHxK_Ad&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" /><param name="base" value="http://admin.brightcove.com" /><param name="seamlesstabbing" value="false" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="swLiveConnect" value="true" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isSlim=1" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashVars="videoId=2830617271001&playerID=2207682275001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAABvaL8JE~,ufBHq_I6Fnwgpz2JFHz_Jerf-MHxK_Ad&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" base="http://admin.brightcove.com" name="flashObj" width="576" height="351" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" swLiveConnect="true" allowScriptAccess="always" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object>
<br />
<br />
<h3>
High stakes</h3>
<br />
Terrible, premature deaths like Youvella's remind us of the high stakes in many sports, from football, whether American or in the form of 'soccer', to rugby, horse-racing and boxing.<br />
<br />
No one would seek to ban people from taking part in sport, the upsides of which embrace an individual's health and sense of self-respect and have a wider societal benefit in fostering discipline, camaraderie and teamwork.<br />
<br />
But in many things America shows the way - and last August the National Football League agreed to a $765m (£478) out-of-court settlement with a group of former players who had sued the league for, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2013/nov/09/hugo-lloris-head-injuries-nfl" target="_blank">as <i>The Guardian</i> put it</a>, "its role in hiding or underplaying the effects of brain trauma in the game, while glorifying its violence, a cover-up which has been exposed in a series of recent books and documentaries." Happily - in a development that we should applaud - Microsoft co-founder and Seattle Seahawks owner Paul Allen last week announced that he will fund a two-year, $2.4 million study into whether repeated blows to the head can lead to dementia.<br />
<br />
American football is not only sport in the spotlight for its alleged laissez-faire attitude to head injuries. Just this week, 10 players from the National Hockey League began <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/26/sports/hockey/retired-players-sue-nhl-over-head-injuries.html?hpw&rref=sports&_r=0" target="_blank">legal proceedings against the league for negligence and fraud</a>, alleging that the sport’s officials should have done more to address head injuries but instead celebrated a culture of speed and violence.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Too robust?</h3>
<br />
Could the same thing happen here? British sporting culture prides itself on being robust, on taking the knocks and getting up and playing on. But 'being robust' can have deadly consequences. Hugo Lloris was, thankfully, lucky; the next footballer encouraged to play on after a head injury might not be.<br />
<br />
The key message is that prevention is better than cure - especially when it comes to brain injuries. We must remain vigilant and astute to the dangers of 'getting on with it'; so too must we keep a watchful eye on medical developments in this complex area. And, looking across the pond, we could sensibly take a leaf out of Paul Allen's book - at the same time as hoping that British sportspeople don't find themselves forced to take class actions to achieve recompense for traumatic head injuries.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-312873295101305388.post-50475908629796898422013-11-20T09:18:00.000+00:002013-11-20T09:18:35.035+00:00The HMRC's overnight change to policy on the release of employment histories is flawed and dangerous. It must be reversedSometimes it's tempting to conclude that the only feasible reaction to policy changes under the present government is despair. For all the committees, consultations and conferences - for all the ticking of 'impact assessment' boxes and due regard for the views of stakeholders - things still seem to happen without rhyme or reason.<br />
<br />
The latest example of this comes in the form of an entirely unheralded change in policy by HM Revenue & Customs.<br />
<br />
<h3>
No consultation</h3>
<br />
HMRC now says that a request for the employment history of a deceased person will only be released to that person's representatives on receipt of a court order served on the General Counsel and Solicitor to HMRC. Only a matter of days ago, it was the case that a deceased's personal representatives had so sign and provide a form of authority for the information to be released. Not any more, thanks to a change that's been introduced overnight, without any form of consultation with affected parties.<br />
<br />
The new system has major ramifications for <a href="http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/type/mesothelioma/" target="_blank">mesothelioma</a> claims. When a person dies with mesothelioma as a likely cause, it's vital for the estate to be able to establish the deceased's employment history. This is often difficult to piece together, but an HMRC work history schedule (based on national insurance contributions) will list all the deceased's employers since 1961. With this information to hand, solicitors can begin the process of establishing where and when a deceased worked, the extent of exposure to asbestos and identifying the correct defendant.<br />
<br />
Now, though, the time, expense and inconvenience of an application to court is necessary. Only then will the information be disclosed.<br />
<br />
Staff at HMRC's Longbenton office say the reason for this change of policy is "because the records are stored in accordance with the Data Protection Act." In other words, disclosing them would be a breach of privacy under the Act. This, <a href="http://files.apil.org.uk/weekly-news/14112013.htm" target="_blank">the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers have pointed out</a>, is wrong. It is arguable that, like the right to sue for defamation, rights to privacy die with the individual, but in any event any such privacy rights (if they still exist) must pass to the deceased's personal representatives. It is for them to give consent for the release of employment records.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Delay and expense</h3>
<br />
Why has this policy change been made? Its only effect will be to cause delay and expense for those who wish to bring a claim for loved ones tragically killed by mesothelioma. It flies in the face of the government's declared aim of speeding up the claims process for mesothelioma sufferers.<br />
<br />
A conspiracy theorist might point to the number of ministerial shareholdings in insurers and suggest that overnight changes such as this don't happen by accident. A cynic might point to the government's regular announcements of a war on bureaucracy and say that this is precisely the sort of meaningless red tape it is fighting. And those who feel so despairing at the injustice of contemporary politics that they cannot rouse themselves to vote might simply sigh and say 'what do you expect?'<br />
<br />
But I think we should resist conspiracies, cynicism and despair. Instead, we should campaign to reverse this absurd change in policy. Please retweet, comment, reblog and otherwise disseminate this piece and your support for its views in the hope that HMRC sees reason.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-312873295101305388.post-38478639095822206432013-11-12T11:19:00.000+00:002013-11-12T11:19:49.486+00:00Where have all the ethics gone? That the police need a code on ethics is a damning indictment of modern societyYesterday's Times carried a short piece about the anger of those whose loved ones were caught up in the Hillsborough disaster towards Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner.<br />
<br />
Their anger stems from "confusion" over whether Sir Bernard - who, on the day of tragedy, was an officer at a club in Sheffield where families waited for news about fans - gave a statement to the Hillsborough inquiry carried out by Lord Taylor of Gosforth, the late Lord Chief Justice. Sir Bernard is on record as saying that he provided statements to Lord Taylor, but they do not appear in the archives of official documents published by last September's <a href="http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/" target="_blank">Hillsborough Independent Panel report</a>.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Confusion all round</h4>
<br />
Sir Bernard now stands accused of making misleading statements about the inquiry into the tragedy. He himself says he was "confused" when he said that he had made a statement to Taylor inquiry.<br />
<br />
Hillsborough's families would like the Independent Police Complaints Commission to <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/nov/11/met-police-hogan-howe-hillsborough" target="_blank">investigate Sir Bernard's account</a> and why he appears never to have made an official statement to the inquiry, despite having been an inspector in South Yorkshire police at the time of the disaster. The IPCC may well take up the baton; Sir Bernard says he will welcome any investigation they chose to undertake. For now, it would be wrong to prejudge what will come of this.<br />
<br />
But if time will reveal the ramifications of the "confusion", the families' ire is understandable. It comes as an IPCC investigation into alleged police misconduct during and in the aftermath of Britain's worst sporting disaster continues. So much remains unresolved about police culpability at Hillsborough that fateful day; feelings cannot but run high.<br />
<br />
All this might also explain paradoxical feelings about the Home Secretary's recent announcement that the police are to have their own code of ethics. The Times trailed this towards the end of October with a story headlined: "Officers must agree to 'respect and obey law'."<br />
<br />
<h4>
Ethics go for a bike ride</h4>
<a href="http://www.college.police.uk/en/20972.htm" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="Draft Code of Ethics for policing in England and Wales" border="0" src="http://www.college.police.uk/en/images/Homepage_Code_of_ethics_1.jpg" title="Your chance to have your say on our draft Code of Ethics for policing in England and Wales" /></a><br />
Those who gasped in astonishment at the notion that police officers were being asked to agree to respect and obey the law would only have grown more disconcerted by the story itself.<br />
<br />
It transpired that in the wake of 'Plebgate' - the infamous incident involving the police, a politician, his bike and an unholy aftermath - the Home Secretary felt it necessary to issue the police with a new code of ethics. Its core message was exactly as per The Times' headline - that police officers would be reminded, via the code, of their duty to respect and obey the law. The College of Policing, itself a recent creation of Theresa May (who set it up in 2011 to professionalise the police force), had been tasked with drafting the code. The rationale saw professionalism invoked as the name of the game, with the College writing to its members (serving police officers) and saying it was "professionalising the service in the same way we see the General Medical Council's Standards and ethics guidance for doctors or The Bar Council's Code of Conduct of the Bar of England and Wales."<br />
<br />
Professionalism is one thing. Having a police force that needs to be reminded of its duty to "respect and obey" the law is another. And yet to look at just three incidents in the past 25 years is to behold a police force that has a dubious relationship with its rationale.<br />
<br />
The police are supposed to embody the rule of law. They're supposed to be peacekeepers, not law breakers. In living memory, they were also essentially benign characters, as helpful as they were authoritative. But we have seen poor behaviour by the police at <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-24431269" target="_blank">Hillsborough and in its aftermath</a>. We have seen racism – witness the death of Stephen Lawrence and the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/feb/24/lawrence.ukcrime12" target="_blank">Macpherson Report</a>. And now, after Plebgate, it transpires that <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10416007/Police-ethics-fall-well-short-warns-report.html" target="_blank">nine out ten police officers believe the force must change</a>.<br />
<br />
Perhaps, then, we should be thankful to <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-announces-new-code-of-ethics-for-police-8901641.html" target="_blank">Theresa May and her innovative new ethical charter for the police</a>. But we might ask what this says about our society. If our police need to be reminded to obey and respect the law, where have all the ethics gone?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0