In the case of Andrew Malkinson he's been waiting for compensation for 3 years that's just wrong.
I always marvel at people's ability to believe just the 1 side's Lawyers. When both sides' lawyers are there to look after their Client. While pretending to be seeking "justice". When in reality it is all about the money.
There can be all sorts of reasons why such cases take so long.
Here is the most common reason.
Solicitors for the Claimants want 1 figure. And Solicitors for the Taxpayer want to pay a lower figure. And the delay is due to both sides arguing about those 2 figures.
The Solicitor for the Claimant believes the delay is caused by the meanness of the other side. And, in exactly the same way, the other side think it is due to the unrealistic expectations of the Claimant and/or their Solicitors. Except they are not allowed to go to the Press.
In the case of Andrew Malkinson he's been waiting for compensation for 3 years that's just wrong.
I always marvel at people's ability to believe just the 1 side's Lawyers. When both sides' lawyers are there to look after their Client. While pretending to be seeking "justice". When in reality it is all about the money.
There can be all sorts of reasons why such cases take so long.
Here is the most common reason.
Solicitors for the Claimants want 1 figure. And Solicitors for the Taxpayer want to pay a lower figure. And the delay is due to both sides arguing about those 2 figures.
The Solicitor for the Claimant believes the delay is caused by the meanness of the other side. And, in exactly the same way, the other side think it is due to the unrealistic expectations of the Claimant and/or their Solicitors. Except they are not allowed to go to the Press.
In the case of Andrew Malkinson he's been waiting for compensation for 3 years that's just wrong.
I always marvel at people's ability to believe just the 1 side's Lawyers. When both sides' lawyers are there to look after their Client. While pretending to be seeking "justice". When in reality it is all about the money.
There can be all sorts of reasons why such cases take so long.
Here is the most common reason.
Solicitors for the Claimants want 1 figure. And Solicitors for the Taxpayer want to pay a lower figure. And the delay is due to both sides arguing about those 2 figures.
The Solicitor for the Claimant believes the delay is caused by the meanness of the other side. And, in exactly the same way, the other side think it is due to the unrealistic expectations of the Claimant and/or their Solicitors. Except they are not allowed to go to the Press.
So what yer saying is Lawyers are robbing ****.
Sometimes. But it's not that simple. Life rarely is.
Some times it is the sheer greed of the Client. For which the Solicitor gets the blame.
Other times there is a level of bureaucracy causing the delay. So-for example-many County Courts (Sheriff Courts in Scotland) are hopelessly underfunded and have delays of many months for interim and final Hearings. Which causes massive problems.
I told my kids not to go anywhere near Law. The top 1% are on great money. But Mr Average earns less than every other comparable profession.
In the case of Andrew Malkinson he's been waiting for compensation for 3 years that's just wrong.
I always marvel at people's ability to believe just the 1 side's Lawyers. When both sides' lawyers are there to look after their Client. While pretending to be seeking "justice". When in reality it is all about the money.
There can be all sorts of reasons why such cases take so long.
Here is the most common reason.
Solicitors for the Claimants want 1 figure. And Solicitors for the Taxpayer want to pay a lower figure. And the delay is due to both sides arguing about those 2 figures.
The Solicitor for the Claimant believes the delay is caused by the meanness of the other side. And, in exactly the same way, the other side think it is due to the unrealistic expectations of the Claimant and/or their Solicitors. Except they are not allowed to go to the Press.
I wonder how many times the difference between those figures is less than the legal fees accrued trying to argue about them?
I'm sure you're aware of the story of one of the largest and oldest Trusts in history Phil (I can't remember it's name now) but it was subject to legal dispute for decades and decades, eventually the case was dropped as the Trust had run out of money paying the legal fees and had nothing left to give out to the beneficiaries!
In these cases there should be a very quick and significant interim settlement to make sure those involved are not suffering further.
In the case of Andrew Malkinson he's been waiting for compensation for 3 years that's just wrong.
I always marvel at people's ability to believe just the 1 side's Lawyers. When both sides' lawyers are there to look after their Client. While pretending to be seeking "justice". When in reality it is all about the money.
There can be all sorts of reasons why such cases take so long.
Here is the most common reason.
Solicitors for the Claimants want 1 figure. And Solicitors for the Taxpayer want to pay a lower figure. And the delay is due to both sides arguing about those 2 figures.
The Solicitor for the Claimant believes the delay is caused by the meanness of the other side. And, in exactly the same way, the other side think it is due to the unrealistic expectations of the Claimant and/or their Solicitors. Except they are not allowed to go to the Press.
I wonder how many times the difference between those figures is less than the legal fees accrued trying to argue about them?
I'm sure you're aware of the story of one of the largest and oldest Trusts in history Phil (I can't remember it's name now) but it was subject to legal dispute for decades and decades, eventually the case was dropped as the Trust had run out of money paying the legal fees and had nothing left to give out to the beneficiaries!
In these cases there should be a very quick and significant interim settlement to make sure those involved are not suffering further.
The World is changing. And Law faster than most.
The wealthiest, and biggest, firms don't do this sort of work. Ever. By which I mainly mean acting for the Claimants, although most don't act for the Defendants either.
Most of these Claimant firms have literally spent £millions of their own money up front on these sorts of cases. They are desperate to settle claims as quickly as possible. And if they don't feel that way, their Banks do.
I hear what you say about interim settlements. I suggested it myself earlier in this thread. The downside is that the comfortable can feel entitled to argue on points of principle at endless costs to the Taxpayer.
Take the Post Office scandal, for example. A terrible scandal. But there are some Claimants (and some Claimant Lawyers) milking it to a ridiculous degree. Because some of the offers rejected as "derisory" have been for eye-watering sums.
In the case of Andrew Malkinson he's been waiting for compensation for 3 years that's just wrong.
I always marvel at people's ability to believe just the 1 side's Lawyers. When both sides' lawyers are there to look after their Client. While pretending to be seeking "justice". When in reality it is all about the money.
There can be all sorts of reasons why such cases take so long.
Here is the most common reason.
Solicitors for the Claimants want 1 figure. And Solicitors for the Taxpayer want to pay a lower figure. And the delay is due to both sides arguing about those 2 figures.
The Solicitor for the Claimant believes the delay is caused by the meanness of the other side. And, in exactly the same way, the other side think it is due to the unrealistic expectations of the Claimant and/or their Solicitors. Except they are not allowed to go to the Press.
I wonder how many times the difference between those figures is less than the legal fees accrued trying to argue about them?
I'm sure you're aware of the story of one of the largest and oldest Trusts in history Phil (I can't remember it's name now) but it was subject to legal dispute for decades and decades, eventually the case was dropped as the Trust had run out of money paying the legal fees and had nothing left to give out to the beneficiaries!
In these cases there should be a very quick and significant interim settlement to make sure those involved are not suffering further.
The World is changing. And Law faster than most.
The wealthiest, and biggest, firms don't do this sort of work. Ever. By which I mainly mean acting for the Claimants, although most don't act for the Defendants either.
Most of these Claimant firms have literally spent £millions of their own money up front on these sorts of cases. They are desperate to settle claims as quickly as possible. And if they don't feel that way, their Banks do.
I hear what you say about interim settlements. I suggested it myself earlier in this thread. The downside is that the comfortable can feel entitled to argue on points of principle at endless costs to the Taxpayer.
Take the Post Office scandal, for example. A terrible scandal. But there are some Claimants (and some Claimant Lawyers) milking it to a ridiculous degree. Because some of the offers rejected as "derisory" have been for eye-watering sums.
In this case the compensation is capped at a million quid. It would be difficult to argue that an innocent person that has served 38 years should not receive the maximum. Are you saying that legal fees can be claimed over and above the cap?
He believes-with some justification-that the relevant "justice chiefs" have been useless during the period.
Presumably that would be such luminaries as:-
The Solicitor General 1998 The (first ever) Secretary of State for Justice 2003-2007 The Lord Chancellor 2003-2007 The Shadow Justice Secretary 2015-16 The Shadow Attorney General 2020-21
You've guessed it. All Lord Falconer. Did naff all to help solve the problems. Believes it is all someone else's fault. Naturally. 1 finger pointed outwards-4 fingers pointing back at himself
PS. Yes-the legal fees would be on top of the award, although they should be relatively small once the maximum offer is made.
Comments
There can be all sorts of reasons why such cases take so long.
Here is the most common reason.
Solicitors for the Claimants want 1 figure. And Solicitors for the Taxpayer want to pay a lower figure. And the delay is due to both sides arguing about those 2 figures.
The Solicitor for the Claimant believes the delay is caused by the meanness of the other side. And, in exactly the same way, the other side think it is due to the unrealistic expectations of the Claimant and/or their Solicitors. Except they are not allowed to go to the Press.
Some times it is the sheer greed of the Client. For which the Solicitor gets the blame.
Other times there is a level of bureaucracy causing the delay. So-for example-many County Courts (Sheriff Courts in Scotland) are hopelessly underfunded and have delays of many months for interim and final Hearings. Which causes massive problems.
I told my kids not to go anywhere near Law. The top 1% are on great money. But Mr Average earns less than every other comparable profession.
I'm sure you're aware of the story of one of the largest and oldest Trusts in history Phil (I can't remember it's name now) but it was subject to legal dispute for decades and decades, eventually the case was dropped as the Trust had run out of money paying the legal fees and had nothing left to give out to the beneficiaries!
In these cases there should be a very quick and significant interim settlement to make sure those involved are not suffering further.
The wealthiest, and biggest, firms don't do this sort of work. Ever. By which I mainly mean acting for the Claimants, although most don't act for the Defendants either.
Most of these Claimant firms have literally spent £millions of their own money up front on these sorts of cases. They are desperate to settle claims as quickly as possible. And if they don't feel that way, their Banks do.
I hear what you say about interim settlements. I suggested it myself earlier in this thread. The downside is that the comfortable can feel entitled to argue on points of principle at endless costs to the Taxpayer.
Take the Post Office scandal, for example. A terrible scandal. But there are some Claimants (and some Claimant Lawyers) milking it to a ridiculous degree. Because some of the offers rejected as "derisory" have been for eye-watering sums.
It would be difficult to argue that an innocent person that has served 38 years should not receive the maximum.
Are you saying that legal fees can be claimed over and above the cap?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/justice-chiefs-described-as-useless-after-man-wrongly-jailed-for-38-years/ar-AA1ELJrm?ocid=msedgntp&pc=W230&cvid=c69d8db4ffdd4f7982b48dea2bc2b819&ei=36
He believes-with some justification-that the relevant "justice chiefs" have been useless during the period.
Presumably that would be such luminaries as:-
The Solicitor General 1998
The (first ever) Secretary of State for Justice 2003-2007
The Lord Chancellor 2003-2007
The Shadow Justice Secretary 2015-16
The Shadow Attorney General 2020-21
You've guessed it. All Lord Falconer. Did naff all to help solve the problems. Believes it is all someone else's fault. Naturally. 1 finger pointed outwards-4 fingers pointing back at himself
PS. Yes-the legal fees would be on top of the award, although they should be relatively small once the maximum offer is made.