The Daily Mail - Kelvin Mackenzie

[flip_flop]

I know, I know - I'm posting a Daily Mail Kelvin Mackenzie piece and therefore probably breaking two unofficial rules of AB, but I found the attached article very interesting.

I deal with lawyers a lot, and (in addition to most lawyers being an obstacle for good, efficient commerce) firmly believe their charging practices are immoral.

Is there an argument for the MoJ to impose a tariff of charges for different categories of work?

For instance - for small personal injury claims (say under £10,000) no lawyer can earn more than, say, 30% of the compensation award they 'win' for their clients.

[flip_flop]

http://www.dailymail....cat-lawyers-dock.html

[ummmm]

My solicitor took 0% of my compensation award. His costs were covered by the other side.

[flip_flop]

....which ultimately is paid by all of us through increased insurance premiums.

[ummmm]

Depends what it's for though. Being nipped on the finger....or getting knocked over on a pedestrian crossing with your 4 year old child. Bit of a difference.

Anyway, it's scandalous. Being nipped on the finger does not cause anxiety or stress.

[jake-the-peg]

And Ummm did you go and research the case in question or did you just take Kelvin MacKezie's word for the for it that the damage amounted to being "nipped on the finger"

Come on! I know it's early but think about it for a moment!

Nobody goes to court and says I've been "nipped on the finger"

Those must be MacKenzie's words

Why did he choose them?

Because he wanted to make a point about frivilous claims and make people angry and if he said "had her hand bitten" you might have rightly thought a hairdresser couldn't work because her hand was bitten by a dog deserved compensation.

This is why the Daily Mail gets such bad press because they play up or play down stories in this way deliberately to make people angry and people just read this sort of stuff and take it at face value.

MacKezie's jerking your chain and you're falling for it!

[flip_flop]

Given the modest amount of the award, it is a fair assumption it was just a 'nip'. £1,000 is a nuisance payment to get the claimant off their backs. If the nip had been a bite which resulted in a hairdresser not being able to work, she would have got significantly more than £1,000.

That aside - the point is not the amount of the award, its the amount of the lawyers costs.

[ummmm]

Isn't that a risk of life? Putting your hand in someones letter box?

[FredPuli43]

The basic fault lies in the extraordinary basis upon which 'no win , no fee' lawyers are allowed to calculate their costs. The government of the day was so keen to encourage 'no win, no fee' that the rules were written so that these lawyers were able to claim an enormous uplift in the amount they could claim. The resulting totals have been so extraordinary and far beyond what would have been claimable as to be the subject of adverse comment from the judiciary.

[jno]

lawyers don't charge according to the number of toothmarks but according to the amount of work they do, the same as plumbers. Maybe their rates are too high; but that's another matter. The issue here is the "lengthy legal exchange" McKenzie talks about. That's what they're claiming payment for.

[Dodger666]

We should return to pre 1986 when lawyers were banned from advertising.

No more nuisance phone calls telling you that you haven't claimed for the accident you haven't had, and an end to all those annoying TV & radio adverts.

These firms are just money grabbing opportunists that has resulted in all our insurance premiums rocketing.

[HowardKennitby]

I was actually more interested in the next part of that article where Evan Davies was referred to as a 'heavyweight presenter'. Must be using a different dictionary from mine.

[Quizmonster]

"Once the name ‘MacKenzie’ is bandied about, though, the atmosphere changes.
Within 48 hours, the hairdresser’s lawyers have caved in and a deal is done..."

What a self-aggrandising oaf the man is!

[anotheoldgit]

/// I know, I know - I'm posting a Daily Mail Kelvin Mackenzie piece and therefore probably breaking two unofficial rules of AB, but I found the attached article very interesting. ///

Breaking two unofficial rules of AB?????????????

I was quite unaware that there were unofficial rules against the Daily Mail on AnswerBank.

Who introduced these so called rules?

The many 'Left' thinkers on this site perhaps, but when has this site ever been their very own personal domain?

In answer to JTP /// This is why the Daily Mail gets such bad press ///

Didn't they recently win top awards at the Press Awards?

/// The Daily Mail has swept the board at the prestigious annual Press Awards – the Oscars of British journalism.///

/// The Mail triumphed as both Newspaper of the Year and Website of the Year, in total taking an unprecedented nine accolades. ///

[jno]

perhaps it was because this story didn't break until just after the awards, aog...

http://www.guardian.c...sts-private-detective