ChatterBank1 min ago
And how long before the bottom feeding pond life lawyers get going ?
7 Answers
http:// news.sk y.com/s ...-sig ns-to-b e-scrap ped
Not before time, but in this risk averse country we now live in (Thanks to leeching solicitors and it is always 'some one else s fault'), how long will it be before the suing starts?
I can see the TV ads being commissioned right now.
Not before time, but in this risk averse country we now live in (Thanks to leeching solicitors and it is always 'some one else s fault'), how long will it be before the suing starts?
I can see the TV ads being commissioned right now.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.And the official signs are not recognised by many, anyway (the one in the link is 'Warning: boobs in road', in case you were wondering).
Can't see how lawyers benefit from fewer signs. You'd be hard pressed to get a case going because a sign had been removed, unless it was to warn of something which no reasonable driver could have anticipated and the accident occurred in direct consequence of the absence. But that's not what the minister means; it's the useless or unnecessary 'informatory' signs that are the problem.
The 'bottom feeders' flourish because of 'no win, no fee'. Legal aid was scrapped for personal injury claims. To entice lawyers to take up this work, the government agreed that they should get a massive uplift in the costs they could claim if successful. Before,the potential claimant had his case scrutinised, the solicitor could be at some risk if he certified a case as deserving support when that proved to be unmerited, and costs were tightly controlled. Cases that didn't get legal aid on the grounds that the case didn't merit it could be appealed to a tribunal, but the tribunal were a pretty tough lot to persuade.
Can't see how lawyers benefit from fewer signs. You'd be hard pressed to get a case going because a sign had been removed, unless it was to warn of something which no reasonable driver could have anticipated and the accident occurred in direct consequence of the absence. But that's not what the minister means; it's the useless or unnecessary 'informatory' signs that are the problem.
The 'bottom feeders' flourish because of 'no win, no fee'. Legal aid was scrapped for personal injury claims. To entice lawyers to take up this work, the government agreed that they should get a massive uplift in the costs they could claim if successful. Before,the potential claimant had his case scrutinised, the solicitor could be at some risk if he certified a case as deserving support when that proved to be unmerited, and costs were tightly controlled. Cases that didn't get legal aid on the grounds that the case didn't merit it could be appealed to a tribunal, but the tribunal were a pretty tough lot to persuade.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.