citadel insider spring 2015

Rede�ning the lawyers who make a di�erence.

Law firms built on strong foundations

www.citadel-law.com

A personal injury sectorupdate from Citadel Law

Spring 2015

In this issue:Thorneycroft Solicitors ~

Law �rm built on strong foundations secures a post LASPO future

Noise-induced hearing loss – the new whiplash?

Neil Rose’s market round up

Fundamental dishonesty Risk Assessment Toolkit

Avoiding professional negligence

Spring 2015 www.citadel-law.com

Introduction and welcome

Current issues in Personal Injury

Thorneycroft SolicitorsLaw firm built on strong foundations secures a post LASPO future


NIHL – Is this ringing alarm bells in the sector yet as WIP and debt also rise?

Neil Rose’s market round up

Understanding fundamental dishonesty - A risk assessment toolkit

Avoiding professional negligence

Personal injury, professional indemnity and profit

Developing skills in complex injury and clinical negligence claims

This update does not attempt to provide a full analysis of those matters with which it deals and is provided for general information purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice and should not be treated as a substitute for legal advice. Citadel Law accepts no responsibility for any loss that may arise from reliance on the information in this update.

CopyrightThe copyright of all matter appearing within this publication is reserved by the authors and Citadel Law. It may not be reproduced, duplicated or copied by any means without prior consent.© 2010-2015 Citadel Law Limited. All rights reserved

3

4

7

10

12

14

16

18

22

23

Spring 2015 www.citadel-law.com3

In my travels around the personal injury world, I am almost never surprised at

the challenge, adversity and opportunity there still is – much of the latter hidden through lack of innovation. Generally where firms are falling short, it is because of inadequate time to really assess where a firm should be focusing its attention and the overwhelming number of

changes to grapple with, rather than anything more deliberate. It often takes a supportive external perspective to make managers realise where they have been slipping and get a business on track.In this issue of Citadel Insider I highlight the key failings the Citadel team has witnessed in our work with law firms and how they can be remedied. For many the solution is simple, but for some it will require a rethinking of the way they do business. However the rewards for doing so undoubtedly make it worth the effort.

Equally there is much to celebrate in the market, and we profile Thorneycroft Solicitors, a firm that knows what it is about and planned methodically and skilfully for the post-LASPO era. I am pleased that following our initial work with Thorneycroft pre LASPO and through a recent WIP and operational risk management due diligence review Citadel Law have helped secure business growth funding with NatWest. What they have achieved in growth in such a short time in the toughest of markets is a testament to their dedication and tenacity to succeed.

We also look at one of the hottest debates in the PI market – is the growth in noise-

WelcomeWelcome to the Spring 2015 issue of Citadel Law’s Insider update, bringing you the latest thinking and news on the personal injury (PI) market.

induced hearing loss claims a bubble? Is there room for fraud? We get views from both sides, including our own audiological scientist-turned-solicitor Moira Lythgoe and Michael Cairnes of leading risk and insurance law firm Berrymans Lace Mawer.

That, together with a ‘fundamental dishonesty’ risk assessment toolkit and an article on avoiding professional negligence, will hopefully deal with the most challenging issues PI firms should be considering now.

We also have an article on current issues facing the PI sector and I hope our insights will give our readers food for thought as we move swiftly into 2015.

As ever can I thank all of those who have given up their time for this issue of Citadel Insider, including Legal Futures Editor Neil Rose for his now-regular take on the PI market.

I hope you find this issue an informative addition to your sector reading and I welcome any ideas you have for future editions. If you would like to know more about our work please visit www.citadel-law.com, e mail me at [email protected], telephone on 0161 457 0285 or follow me on Twitter @Citadel_Lesley

Best wishes

Lesley GravesManaging Director and solicitorCitadel Law

4Spring 2015 www.citadel-law.com

Current issues in personal injury

Many personal injury firms still have little idea as to how to deal with the seismic shockwaves hitting the sector and many choose to ignore them altogether.

A version of this article was published in the Solicitors Journal on 26 March 2015 and is published with their kind permission. www.solicitorsjournal.com

Recent headlines about “vulture law firms” making professional

negligence claims against PI law firms and potential carnage anticipated for those who are still reliant upon pre LASPO work in progress should sound alarm bells for those failing to make changes. Although quick fees generated from efficiently run post-LASPO cases are enabling some firms to cash in all personal injury firms should be alive to the need to evolve with the current market and manage risk effectively.


Analysing the truth and the data

By now the sector should have dealt with the bulk of the lower value pre-LASPO cases

– those with standard costs, recoverable success fees and ATE premiums. In some cases this has not happened and a glut of cases remain with allegations from some quarters that this is due to deliberately slow management by fee earners.

Whilst this has foundation, the likely outcome from dilatory claims management when limitation hits, is that claims will speed up once proceedings are issued, assuming of course that a firm has sufficient capital reserves to fund increased court fees.

Ultimately however, dilatory handling of PI claims and poor technical expertise will lead to an erosion of the value of pre-LASPO WIP due to the insurance industry arguing over inflated hourly rates, conduct and proportionality issues.

The resulting profitability of these pre-LASPO cases is therefore questionable. Cases that have dragged on for years with WIP written-off and significant capital invested to fund their slow management may equate to financial losses that are not so LASPO proof after all.

Firms still working through their pre-LASPO caseload need to realise that there are actually profits to be made through an efficiently run post-LASPO caseload. What is needed is a robust time and financial analysis tool to deliver the meaningful data required to consider which cases will be profitable for them.

Most pre-LASPO cases are still hanging around because of firms’ failiure to adapt. At the top of every firm is a hierarchy trying to protect itself and attempting to avoid the inevitable spotlight on whether the firm’s skillsets are really “LASPO proof”.

Many firms are trying to manage both pre and post-LASPO cases as well as multi-track matters at the same time. Unfortunately, very often they are litigated in the same way, resulting in a number of problems, namely:

• Overworkinglowvaluecases

• Underworkinghighervaluecases

• Missingsignificantvalueforclientsandprofit

• WIP&disbursementlock-up

• Increasedcapitalrequirements

• Reducedcashflow

• Medicalagencies,experts,counsel,costslawyers and other suppliers chasing for payment as their patience and timeframes for enforcing payment run out.

seeing evidence of missed or inaccurately assessed key dates, inaccurate assessment of liability and quantum and inadequate reporting to legal expense insurers. In some cases there is inadequate monitoring of rehabilitation which is causing problems with recoverability and potentially placing an increasing strain upon the NHS and therefore costing the taxpayer.

All of this can lead to compensation awards being adversely affected. Not only does this let clients down but it also has the knock on effect of hitting the bottom line, eroding profitability and meaning that financial targets are not being met.

Increasingly BTE and ATE insurers are having to pay out for lost cases and some are refusing to pay, alleging poor risk management by law firms. Cash flow is being adversely affected and payments to third parties are being delayed. As performance issues are raised and inevitably Solicitors Accounts Rules and other regulations are breached such firms are facing rising professional indemnity insurance costs.

All of this does not escape the notice of banks, investors, professional indemnity and legal expense insurers, medical and other agencies or providers. Their hardening attitude is palpable as a new breed of PI law firm emerges that is inherently at risk of professional negligence and poor financial performance.

Poor performance, professional negligence and missing profits in a post LASPO dawnSo poor case management is partly to blame for many firm’s failure to adapt to current changes. Another issue for a number of firms is that they are seeing cases failing due to a lack of expertise. We are

All of this can lead to compensation awards being adversely affected.


The unknown unknownsIf a firm is unaware of its risk exposure, actively choosing to look closer is not often on the agenda. Predicting when and why some firms will fail in PI is impossible.

What we do know however, is that these underlying issues are hitting the sector now and small firms will disappear without being noticed. Medium-sized organisations going under will perhaps be noted with a media worthy nod, and the large firms who have set their stall out “Enron style” (once quoted as “America’s most innovative company” by Fortune Magazine) if they fail, will fail big.

Firms who are small, niche and nimble may adapt quickly enough as performance issues surface easily when there’s nowhere to hide. Larger firms have far more to fear

TheKnown

The KnownUnknown

The UnknownUnknown

Post-LASPO apocalypseWhether you are a small firm or in the top 100, all firms carrying out PI work are exposed to risk.

To date most have had their PI fee earners and management working in silos, armed only with industry quality marks and standards to protect them. None of these provide any level of comfort around technical, operational and financial skill and expertise. In addition, the arbitrary hours based continuing professional development scheme is now being replaced following SRA proposals recently approved by the LSB. As erosion of safeguards and exposure to risk within the sector goes, what we are witnessing is akin to a JCB digging up a child’s sandpit.

So, current schemes that have hitherto given firms comfort around their “performance management” are not working nor are they fit for purpose. If they were then the sector would not require the significant financial investment and consolidation that is currently taking place.

Analysing the profit generated from PI

from operational inefficiencies, rogue management and fee earners who can cause damage that goes hidden for years.

It all equates to financial, regulatory and PII risk and it will prove true that the bigger they are the harder they fall. The unknown unknowns are there – we just don’t know them yet.

Meaningful risk management

Meaningful and expert risk management has to be the top priority of any business. I estimate that less than 3% of the PI sector (law firms, banks, funders, insurers, suppliers included) has meaningful risk management that on a par with the well-established and recognised levels of risk management within the highest levels of the corporate arena.

The current “checklists” and “audits” in today’s recognised quality standards are a far cry from the meaningful risk management needed. Risk management in all aspects of the sector should be analysed to the highest competence standards and measured in terms of knowledge, expertise and ethics. Only with that will businesses be able to make robust decisions to enable them to continue to invest in or withdraw from the PI sector with confidence.

Lesley Graves is Managing Director of personal injury consulting law firm Citadel Law

Firms who are small, niche and nimble may adapt quickly enough as performance issues surface easily when there’s nowhere to hide.


In very broad terms solicitors had two types of approaches to the Jackson reforms:

there were those who saw the changes coming and began to work out how they were going to change 18 months or more before LASPO kicked in; and there were those who woke up on 1 April 2013 and thought

“Now what?”Macclesfield-based Thorneycroft Solicitors fell firmly into the former category. “There was a huge element of denial elsewhere, but we started planning at least two years before LASPO,” says Managing Director Rachel Stow.

Thorneycroft Solicitors –Law firm built on strong foundations secures a post LASPO future

From L to R – Aldo Palazzo, Mike Coghlan, Rob Thorneycroft, Rachel Stow, Mark Belfield.Thorneycroft Solicitors’ Directors and Nat West’s Aldo Palazzo

It helped that “we have always run Thorneycroft as a business providing legal services, not simply a law firm charging by the hour”. As a firm that also prides itself on being innovative, she says the first step was to read The End of Lawyers? and Tomorrow’s Lawyers, Professor Richard Susskind’s highly influential books.

Thereafter the firm took a twin-track approach to getting ready for Jackson. Already best known for its work on motorcycle injuries – which meant a mix of fast-track and multi-track work – Thorneycroft aligned itself more closely to specialist motorcycle claims company Bankstone, as part of a group that also includes a credit hire business, a medical agency and another, smaller CMC.


“I did want to embrace technology to smooth the process. It’s about having the right people in the right places for the work that needs them.”

Then there was the internal piece. With a focus on ‘people, processes and pricing’, Rachel looked at what technology could offer.

“I didn’t want to dumb down but I did want to embrace technology to smooth the process. It’s about having the right people in the right places for the work that needs them.”

She brought in Citadel Law to review how they were operating. “I met Lesley and asked her to give me the elevator pitch of why we should use her,” Rachel recalls. “She simply said, ‘I’ll find your nuggets’ – the hidden value in our cases.”

And so it proved – “She found lots more nuggets than we thought we had and in our larger loss claims our reputation and expertise continues to grow.”

The process of having Citadel in, upskilling staff, helping with case planning and maximising value out of the caseload “shines a light that can be a bit painful”, Rachel admits, but it had to be gone through.

The key strategic decision taken by the directors – made up of Rachel, Senior Partner Rob Thorneycroft, Technical Director Mike Coghlan, and Head of Large Loss Mark Belfield – was that firm couldn’t be so heavily focused on volume PI, and since then a focus on the firm’s private client department has paid dividends; from being 5% of turnover, it now accounts for 15%. A key strategic decision was to bring on board Sue Carnwell as Group Financial Director in 2014, who has a background in accounting and finance and has worked in the legal sector for 16 years. Sue has been an active participant in the business and a key driver of it supporting the directors in their growth strategy. Sue has

developed reporting, budgeting and forecasting, along with time recording, which has allowed us to also have a far clearer insight into the profitability of different work types and our assessment of new work and opportunities.

Sue CarnwellGroup Financial Director

The PI operation has also been restructured:

there is a new business team,

a technology driven portal team (supported by a Thorneycroft app that aids communication with clients), a non-portal team for cases that fall out of the process, and a large loss team.

The firm is still buying in cases and has put so much work into ensuring compliance with the referral fee ban that on 1 April 2013 one referrer decided to send all of its work to Thorneycroft because none of its other law firm clients were either ready or compliant.

But alongside this has been a push to become much more of a community firm, playing to its strengths as a large local employer (around 150 people work at Thorneycroft). It has opened a second branch office, developed links with a local hospice and generally become more visible. “Making a difference close to home is as important as what we’re doing nationally,” says Rachel. “I’m enjoying the fact that people know who we are and what we do.”

She is all too aware of the state of constant flux that PI lawyers find themselves in and consider Thorneycroft ready for whatever is thrown at the market – for example, the firm has already stopped passing its medicals through its own agency. She knows that other firms with MROs (medical reporting organisation) are looking at where to send their medicals. “It’s all about relationships and reputation – if you don’t have those, then you don’t get work.”

“I’ve always led as a leader and not a boss. We have a saying that it’s ‘sleeves time’, when we have to roll our sleeves up and get stuck in.”

Thorneycroft is also living up to its innovative tag by looking beyond pure legal services offerings. With the broad range of expertise available within the wider group, Rachel is putting together a package of services that will give broad protection to the likes of construction and transport companies, including advice on issues such as compliance, health and safety, driver training and HR, and even carrying out drugs testing.

“We are having to be more business-like, but that’s not a change for us,” says Rachel. “We incorporated in 2003, all our trainees get business training – such as in project management – and our FD Sue Carnwell ensures we all keep to our budgets.”

And now Thorneycroft – aided by due diligence undertaken by Citadel Law – has announced a new funding deal with NatWest allowing continued growth.

NatWest commercial manager Aldo Palazzo says: “Thorneycroft Solicitors is a leader in providing innovative solutions to clients that go beyond the business’s excellent legal service provision. The company directors have a clear vision of its long-term future in the legal sector and have invested in services that will enable it to continue to grow.”

And just as crucial in all of this is Rachel’s own style. “I’ve always led as a leader and not a boss. We have a saying that it’s ‘sleeves time’, when we have to roll our sleeves up and get stuck in. I want to lead by example.”

As a firm which has grown since implementation of LASPO, it is an example that many others would be wise to follow.


So now that we’ve been there and done that, here’s what we have learnt:

One Project, One Team We took the view that it’s not the sole responsibility of the management team or senior partners to

restructure the business, so we set up a project team to include representatives from the whole firm. Not only was this important in getting all voices heard, those representatives played a crucial and trusted role in cascading information back to their respective teams and preventing rumour and uncertainty, which can delay, if not, derail a restructure.

Communication Every week, without fail, we gave a whole firm update. Even if there was no update, the message was ‘no update and here’s why…’ Never forget that people are paramount as they influence culture, which sets the tone for all you do in business.

Manage expectations A restructure can often mean moving individuals into different roles or getting them to perform additional

SUPPORTIVE SPECIALIST BANKINGAldo PalazzoCommercial Manager

NatWest1 Spinningfields SquareDeansgateManchester M33APT: 01618624161M: 07876577829E: [email protected]

Thorneycroft Solicitors recently moved its banking facilities to NatWest due to the bank’s specialist work for customers in the legal sector. The business was supported by commercial manager Aldo Palazzo on the funding arrangement.

Aldo says “Thorneycroft Solicitors is a leader in providing innovative solutions to clients that go beyond the business’s excellent legal service provisions. The company directors have a clear vision on the business’s long term future in the legal sector and have invested into

tasks. It’s not uncommon to hear a lawyer say: “That’s not what I was trained to do.” That might be so but the reality is a deregulated market and increasingly savvy buyers of legal services. Equip your lawyers to meet the challenges of the new legal world, or help move them out to a more traditional environment.

Baby Steps Manage change in small chunks. Start from where you need to get to and then work backwards, breaking down every single step. In doing so, be realistic and allow time. Looking back I’m particularly pleased we acted when we did. It gave us chance to make mistakes.

Make sure you can track whether the changes are working Think very carefully about your MI before you start the process. You need to be able to track during and after the process how the changes are impacting on your business, otherwise you’ll never know if restructuring was worth it.

Don’t be afraid of what you don’t know We made some mistakes along the way, but the fact is that if we hadn’t done some of those things and made the mistakes we did, we wouldn’t be where we are today. We learnt along the way. Importantly, we never put all our eggs in one basket and never became solely focused on one avenue for success. We weren’t afraid to try – it proved far better than standing still.

MANAGING THE CHANGE PROCESS By Rachel Stow

services that will enable it to continue to grow. I was delighted to support Thorneycroft on this financing agreement and I look forward to working with them in the future.”

“Citadel Law helped the bank to develop a detailed understanding of the firm and its ability to undertake litigation work effectively and efficiently. With the benefit of this additional insight the bank was in a position to deliver a positive statement of credit appetite and a differential approach that secured a new customer.”

NatWest is committed to supporting the legal sector. We have 95 independently accredited Relationship Managers looking after our professional services customers across Manchester/the north as part of a network of specialists across the UK.



The Association of British Insurers has been busy labelling the growth in noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) claims as the new whiplash. But they are very different beasts.

Moira LythgoeSenior solicitor & formeraudiological scientistCitadel Law

We asked Citadel Law’s NIHL expert Moira Lythgoe – who

worked as an audiological scientist for the NHS before qualifying as a solicitor – and Michael Cairns, a partner in the UK and Ireland’s leading risk and insurance law firm BLM, to give their perspectives on this controversial debate.Insurers are very focused on showing that a large number of NIHL claims are fraudulent – but our auditing does not show that this is a significant problem.

At the heart of these claims, there is usually a claimant of retirement age who has suffered damage to his hearing as a result of exposure to excessive levels of noise at work.

Unlike whiplash, NIHL is a clearly diagnosable condition. Although it is possible for an individual to exaggerate

the severity of a hearing impairment, they would not be able to feign the typical features of NIHL in a hearing test.

Even if a hearing test demonstrates noise induced hearing loss, a claim could still fail.

You have to find a defendant, who may have gone out of business many years ago, and then the insurers. You have to show that the

claimant was exposed to sufficient levels and amounts of noise, without any or any adequate hearing protection, to be able to establish breach of duty. Limitation will potentially cause problems in every case. This is because of the historic nature of these claims.

A process-driven approach to these claims does not work. They need to be handled by fee-earners with sufficient experience and expertise in the field.

At the start, these cases must be properly risk assessed to establish whether there are reasonable prospects of success. A thorough process of evidence gathering and statement-taking should then take place.

The firms that are doing it right are those where the work is handled by fee-earners with the requisite training, experience and expertise. Complexities generally arise in these claims and the fee-earners need to be able to deal with them.

So for many reasons, NIHL is not the new whiplash. While there is a large volume of cases, it will not be so for ever more – if you look at the average age of claimants, they tend to be in their 60s and 70s. There is an end point to this work, even if it is not imminent.


Michael CairnsPartner ~ BLM

Insurers are seeing vast numbers of NIHL claims being presented. Whilst numbers are not quite up to the whiplash claim levels of the past, it is a cause for concern with some insurers reporting a 50-100% increase in NIHL claims in the last 12 – 18 months.

The increase in advertising and sourcing of disease claims has created a scenario where the public are being approached in shopping centres or by cold calls to attend hearing tests which are combined with the

lure of ‘no win, no fee’ agreements to pursue claims. We are seeing increasing numbers of low levels of loss being presented in claims where an individual has noticed no discernible change in hearing and we also have seen the age of claimants shifting from the older generations to a mixed age group.

It is perhaps emotive to describe NIHL claims as “the new whiplash”, but the stark reality is that there are concerns that some of these claims are not genuine. The subjective element to the testing creates potential difficulties, as it can be open to inaccuracies due to the reliance placed on the individuals’ reactions to being tested. Of greater concern is the fact that audiograms are often undertaken on behalf of claimant firms in inappropriate conditions (meeting rooms/hired community halls etc.) and not in accordance with the guidelines set out by the British Society of Audiologists.

Another challenge is whether one audiogram is sufficient? Research shows that two tests can produce as much as a 25 decibels variation and when you consider that most cases involve a minor reduction of hearing of less than 20 decibels, this is very significant. For that reason alone a relatively

cheap second audiogram is a good way of verifying the reliability of the initial test.

The personal injury market has seen dramatic changes in the last few years with the advent of the MOJ reforms and the impact of fixed fees and removal of success fees. Many disease cases however fall outside the portal so fixed fees do not apply making this a potentially lucrative revenue stream for claimant law firms. However the cases are often not straightforward, and the repudiation rates are very high. This may suggest that many claims are not being handled by claimant lawyers efficiently and with the required expertise for this specialist area of work which is unfair to the claimant.

It is generally agreed that the current MoJ Employer’s Liability portal is not fit for purpose for disease claims – around 80% currently fall out at stage one because there is simply not enough information provided to properly investigate. I do consider however that a portal could be constructed which would be suitable for these claims but we need a willingness on both sides to achieve this. The defendants would inevitably seek more detailed information provided upfront to investigate the claims such as a record of the claimant’s employmentfromHMRevenue&Customs,a proper witness statement from the claimant and an independent audiogram. To accommodate this, claimants may seek a slight increase in the fixed portal costs. Either way, both parties would need to be collaborative in their approach to the investigation and assessment of liability and causation to ensure a fair and reasonable outcome for claimant and defendant.

King’s House, 42 King Street West, Manchester M3 2NU.www.blmlaw.com


Lesley GravesManaging Director - Citadel Law

Everyone in the sector is getting busier with NIHL work and law firms, insurers

and representative bodies such as FOIL all have something to say due to the increasing numbers expanding into this area and the impact on legal costs. But is that the whole story and where might this flurry of activity lead?

Ultimately NIHL will not turn a quick buck for those without requisite skills. It is far from easy money and an extremely risky area to invest in without expertise, both in the claimant and insurance sectors.

Claimant and insurance litigators, insurers underwriting PII risk and those underwriting legal expense insurance should be considering their business models and a potential for boom or bust dependent upon whether the requisite levels of skill and expertise have been invested to produce a sound business model geared up to deal with the pressure.

All businesses and the banks and private equity that support / invest in them, and insurers who underwrite them – must understand the WIP and capital lock up cycle and expertise required to make this work profitable and reduce professional negligence risk. The investment may never turn into cash receipts if the basics are not understood and cases are not settled profitably.

NIHL – Is this ringing alarm bells in the sector yet as WIP and debt also rise?


Who is at risk?Claimant law firms

For the past 5 years we have seen year on year increase in firms moving into this work and we are increasingly engaged to advise on law firms expertise and financial management of this work. High WIP value and being profitable does not necessarily equate to running the work with the correct technical expertise and our experience is that PII risk is extremely high in this work, as is the cost of claims to ATE insurance providers for adverse costs, unrecovered disbursements and lost cases.

And still law firms are getting busier with this work, despite the inherent risks of failing to invest in the correct expertise and failure to appreciate WIP and capital funding lock up. Up front costs in terms of case acquisition and running costs, staff, premises etc. means firms have a substantial working capital gap when they get busier with more claims and those heading towards litigation and limitation. Unless the sector fully understand the working capital cycle and expertise required to deliver high performance outputs, buying in more work and not having the requisite staff to properly mange it can result in poor performance, and a cycle of “overtrading” that may lead to a firm’s downfall.

Underperforming teams will create lock-up before you appreciate that the cash is not coming through – being able to read the warning signs early is crucial – waiting until the cash runs out and professional indemnity risk is staring you in the face due to poorly handled cases is becoming commonplace in the sector and is likely to increase.

Defendant law firms

The rise in claims in the claimant sector has led to an increased demand for specialism in the defendant insurance sector, without which presents escalating costs and risks to both sides to any claim. The insurance sector is not immune from getting it wrong due to lack of expertise.

This pressure is not confined to claimant law firms and their suppliers of services. I would urge the insurance sector to also look at itself in the mirror and appreciate that if it does not get to grips with assessing the merits of increasing numbers of claims from the claimant sector, they may find their panel status with insurer clients insecure and/or have to invest far more in specialism to make the work profitable. They need to head off poor claims at the pass and settle those with merit quickly and commercially. The key question for the insurance sector is “do you have the requisite expertise and man power to gear up to this current surge of activity?”

If not, loss of credibility within the insurance sector and internally through poor performance may mean losses of a different kind in the insurance sector law firms.

Ultimately those who have seen this coming will have invested substantially to up skill and meet rising demand in their NIHL defence teams hitting the issues in the sector head on rather than face losing clients.

Banks and private equity

For traditional law firm and banking relationships, closer scrutiny has already been apparent for some time to ensure banks with a reduced credit appetite in the PI sector are reassured and we advise regularly to both board level and to firms’ bankers.

There is still strong appetite though and, where profits are likely, private equity will follow.

Off loading or purchasing industrial disease work in varying stages of stress and distress does not generate a particularly high return as we are seeing in the projects we carry out due diligence and valuation upon. Many hit the buffers and deals don’t get done as a result of our advice. Also, we are frequently advising on deals that have been sanctioned and have gone wrong.

The insurance underwriting sector

The reliance upon all of the above in terms of technical capability and financial stability to fund the long tail these cases

invariably require means that those in the underwriting arena may need to re assess their position. Whether BTE or ATE Insurers, professional indemnity insurers and employers liability insurers – all will undoubtedly feel a level of discomfort at the thought of where the influx of claims numbers and activity in the sector will lead.

Do law firms have the necessary skills to risk assess these claims? The general feeling is that a deeper review of law firms and their technical and operational abilities to process claims expertly, compliantly and profitably is now high on the agenda.

Medical Agencies

It is now clear that many law firms are not processing their PI claims as efficiently as they should be and this is having a negative effect on capital funding and lock up for medical agencies. Law firms simply aren’t recovering fees in time or at all and this is leaving medical agencies exposed to financial risk.

The result of the above is that medical agencies and insurance underwriting sector is demanding greater visibility and confidence to continue to invest in law firms carrying out industrial disease work and Neil Rose’s comments on the market on page 15 are hardly a positive endorsement of what lies beneath for all those working in industrial disease.

ConclusionAs to where the influx of new entrants in the sector, claims management companies, medical experts and agencies, law firms, banks, funders, insurers etc. all required to underpin this area of legal services will end up is yet to be seen in full effect. We expect that within 2-3 years the fallout for the sector can begin to be truly measured.

What is certain is that for every success story there is likely to be a story of financial and regulatory pain with business failures damaging the sector and the largest inappropriately managed businesses standing to lose the most.


Market round-upNeil Rose, editor, Legal Futures and Litigation FuturesNeil Rose is the editor of LegalFutures.co.uk and LitigationFutures.co.uk

Award winning legal journalist Neil Rose provides his ‘of the moment view’ discussing ‘fundamental dishonesty’ to ‘the power of data’ in the PI sector.

Winner

LegalAwards2014

It may have been the decision we were all waiting for, but it was also the

decision we were all expecting. At the start of December, the Ministry of Justice issued its response to September’s whiplash consultation and pretty much said ‘full steam ahead’. It only received 69 responses, of which just 22 came from the claimant side – a recognition, I suspect, that this was largely a case of going through the motions. The direction of travel has been clear for a considerable amount of time.

The changes to expert reports will obviously throw the market up in the air once again. Justice secretary Chris Grayling may have said it was not his intention to “inhibit business” by severing the financial link between solicitors

and the experts they instruct, but that will obviously be the effect on some. They might, as he said, be “free to compete for work on the open market”, but I don’t imagine every firm will have the stomach for that.


Meanwhile, and as discussed elsewhere in these pages, the debate over industrial deafness as the new whiplash continues to heat up, not least due to the focus on Quindell and noise-induced hearing loss claims. There appears to be universal agreement that there are firms reassigning RTA staff to NIHL claims with minimal (if any) training. It looks like a disaster for the profession waiting to happen, not least with the growing number of ‘check my claim’ type offerings by law firms which see an opportunity through bulk professional negligence cases.

Another nightmare waiting to happen is, potentially, the new provision on

“fundamentally dishonest” claims in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, which will

become law before the election. This will require a court to dismiss a claim where it is satisfied that the claimant has been fundamentally dishonest, unless it considers the claimant would suffer substantial injustice.

Claimant lawyers say that allegations of dishonesty or exaggeration are already on the rise, and the new law is likely to see them spiral yet further given the potential windfall of making them stick in some way. As Susan Brown, new chair of the Motor Accident Solicitors Society, put it: “How many honest claimants pursuing genuine claims will be prepared to take the risk of proceeding to court if the possible outcome is that they will come out with nothing other than a bill for the insurers’ solicitors’ costs? We will have a fight on our hands when acting for these claimants, to support them and gather the evidence needed to demonstrate that they are not dishonest.”

But the PI story that most caught my attention in recent weeks has been that ofLondonfirmHodgeJones&Allen(HJA)teaming up with a professor of economics and economic measurement at University College London to pioneer a predictive model of case outcomes that will enable the firm to better assess the viability of the 1,200-plus PI cases it handles each year.

Armed with the details of 600 cases, Professor Andrew Chesher used a combination of statistical techniques to examine the factors contributing to which cases were won or lost, the damages that were received by claimants in successful cases, and the costs received by HJA.

Factors examined included the demographics of the claimant, the nature and cause of the injury, the type of defendant, the quality of the defendant’s solicitors, the level of solicitor handling the case, the number and type of witnesses, the corroborating evidence available, the reporting of cases to authorities and hospitals, and the time between injury and instruction.

How many honest claimants pursuing genuine claims will be prepared to take the risk of proceeding to court if the possible outcome is that they will come out with nothing other than a bill for the insurers’ solicitors’ costs?

Professor Chesher said: “There are complex interactions between many of the variables we analysed and, as with many markets where human judgement is involved, there is always an element of unpredictability. However, particularly with the model predicting the likelihood of a case being won or lost, we were able to produce robust models that will improve over time as further data is collected.”

The win-loss modelling showed the importance of the age and working status of the claimant in predicting outcomes, as well as some subtle gender bias. Another key factor was the length of time between injury and instruction, while there was a “complex interaction” between the circumstances of the accident, type of accident and type of defendant.

The damages model showed how the upper level of the Judicial College Guidelines on damages for different types of injury is almost irrelevant in most cases. It also highlighted that although witnesses and reliable evidence were not particularly instrumental in predicting a win or loss, they were important in achieving higher damages.

We’re not yet in Terminator territory, where we have to worry about computers taking over the (legal) world, because human judgment is still a critical part of the process. But it strikes me that too few firms are making use of the power of the data they have to improve their performance.

too few firms are making use of the power of the data they have to improve their performance


So what does this mean? With the profession debating its implications

and a lack of clarity over key terms of the Act, what should law firms do to prepare for the impact of the unknown?

Fundamental dishonesty – the backgroundIn the 2012 case of Summers v Fairclough Homes, the Supreme Court considered the the ability of a court to strike out a claim in its entirety for a finding of ‘fundamental dishonesty’.

Mr Summers had claimed his injury was more significant than it was in an attempt to increase the value of his claim to £840,000. The defendant and the Department for Work and Pensions obtained surveillance evidence, which showed Mr Summers to be far more physically mobile and capable than he claimed and that he was in fact working.

Mr Summers maintained his ‘exaggerated’ claim up to a trial on quantum, where the trial judge held that he had committed fraud

to satisfy the criminal standard and (quite bizarrely) even underwent an unnecessary surgical procedure in an attempt to prove the extent of his injury. Nevertheless, Mr Summers was still awarded almost £89,000 in damages.

On appeal by the defendant, the Supreme Court stated that the power to strike out a claim entirely for fundamental dishonesty is only to be exercised in very exceptional circumstances. Indeed, in this case the fact that the claimant’s claim was reduced from £840,000 to an award of almost £89,000 was not sufficient to see the claim struck out,

even though the court accepted that the claimant had acted dishonestly.

Fast-forward to 2015We now have section 57’s version of ‘fundamental dishonesty’ and what appears to be a more robust approach that can be taken by the courts where it is found that a claimant is acting dishonestly.

Section 57 states: (1) where, in proceedings on a claim for

damages in respect of personal injury (“the primary claim”) —

Understanding fundamental dishonesty-A risk assessment toolkitThe Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 was given Royal Assent on 12 February 2015. Section 57 covers

“Personal injury claims: cases of fundamental dishonesty”


(a) the court finds that the claimant is entitled to damages in respect of the claim, but

(b) on an application by the defendant for the dismissal of the claim under this section, the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the claimant has been fundamentally dishonest in relation to the primary claim or a related claim.

(2) The court must dismiss the primary claim, unless it is satisfied that the claimant would suffer substantial injustice if the claim were dismissed.

If this happens, cost consequences to a claimant will follow and the impact upon a law firm in terms of financial losses, written-off work-in-progess and disbursements and a potential indemnity issue with legal expense insurers (or if none, a liability for third-party costs), will be a harsh financial reality staring many law firms and their clients in the face.

Practically – what should firms be doing?We now examine how, in practical terms, personal injury lawyers should be considering how they adapt their risk assessment processes to meet issues arising from ‘fundamentally dishonest’ clients who may prove to be time consuming and costly distractions in the already challenging business of personal injury law.

Considering your risk assessment processes now will hopefully ameliorate any risks that may present from those clients who, in their differing degrees of exaggeration to downright dishonesty, may put a law firm and its profitability at risk.

Solicitor/client due diligence and risk assessmentWhen initially assessing the merits of a case, we must always consider the credibility of our clients, including that of corroborative witnesses and independent evidence to

support their version of events.

This is now even more important than ever and the following 5-point checklist of key issues to consider should be a critical part of your risk assessment procedures:

1. Liability a) Look out for staged collisions, non-existent

passengers, repeat accidents and related occupants; and

b) The effect of a liability ‘admission’ may not afford protection at a later stage if exaggeration or dishonesty is raised.

2. Quantuma) Exaggeration or dishonesty regarding

injuries; and

b) Exaggeration or dishonesty regarding financial losses.

3. Evidence a) Taking early witness statements and ensuring

clients and witnesses are advised regarding the importance of a statement of truth at regular and key stages of evidence gathering, pre disclosure and after exchange of liability and quantum evidence;

b) Ensuring the client’s liability and quantum claims are corroborated by independent documentation and credible witnesses with statements of truth; and

c) Instructing the correct liability and medical expert witnesses, providing detailed instructions with cross-reading of all evidence to avoid ‘surprises’ at a later date.

4. Client advice and client carea) Consider the importance of explaining the

implications of a finding of ‘fundamental dishonesty’ potentially wiping out the full value of their claim and costs consequences

– both to the third-party insurer/defendant but also the potential for a solicitor/own client charge on costs;

b) Regular advice regarding a client’s best case, exaggeration of a claim and fundamental dishonesty – there are degrees of exaggeration and dishonesty that are yet to

be tested in the courts – using caution and challenging clients and their evidence;

c) The importance of statements of truth from clients and witnesses;

d) Warnings regarding surveillance evidence by third-party insurers; and

e) Warnings of the risks associated with postings, photographs or videos on social media by clients and their friends/others that may be public and easily accessible by third-party insurers.

5. Retainers, LEI, part 36 and costs implications

a) Will you increase your success fee – a justifiable risk based on s.57?

b) Will you look to make a solicitor and own client charge where findings of fundamental dishonesty are made?

c) Ensuring retainers, client care correspondence and funding arrangements cover all eventualities of the new Act to protect clients and law firms alike;

d) The implications of part 36 offers may have greater risk – will your advice be sufficient?;

e) Are your current policy terms with legal expense insurers clear regarding notification and indemnity requirements regarding ‘fundamental dishonesty’?

Early risk management is criticalThese are some of the initial considerations firms may consider making in these early stages as we embark upon the unknown. Rest assured, where the insurance sector is able to gather evidence against your client to deny claims on the basis of fundamental dishonesty, they will do so. The ill-prepared law firm may only appreciate the significant cost consequences by the time it is too late if risk management action is not taken now.

AdviceFor further advice on how to combat issues of fundamental dishonesty negatively affecting your firm, please contact us.


Almost two years since the introduction of LASPO, many claimant personal

injury firms are exposing themselves to the considerable threat of professional negligence claims and rising professional indemnity insurance (PII) premiums. Recent headlines about “vulture law firms” bringing professional negligence claims against personal injury firms should sound alarm bells for those in the market who are failing to evolve and adapt post-LASPO. For many, dilatory and inexperienced claims management, along with inefficient use of case management systems, has become the norm. This is leading to poor client care as well as reduced financial performance.

Increasing exposure to professional negligence claimsWe are regularly seeing personal injury cases failing due to a lack of expertise. Basic mistakes are being made, including the

This article first appeared in the Personal Injury Brief Update Law Journal in February 2015and is republished with their kind permission

Avoiding professional negligence in personal injury workAneweraofmeaningfulperformance&riskmanagement

Risk Management - what lurks in your filing cabinet?


missing or inaccurate assessment of key dates, inaccurate assessment of liability and quantum and inaccurate reporting to legal expense insurers of risk in litigation, including Part 36 risks.

Poor management like this can lead to compensation awards being adversely affected. Not only does this let clients down but it also has the knock on effect of hitting the bottom line, eroding profitability and resulting in financial targets not being met.

Increasingly legal expense insurers are having to pay out for lost cases and some are refusing to do so, alleging poor risk management by law firms, often rightly so.

Our audit data from the past five years has shown clear indications of significant and real risk of under settlement of personal injury cases. On a weekly basis we find cases that would be worth far more if assessed properly.

Our benchmarking data shows that 10% of low-value personal injury cases involve more serious injuries and more than 70% of cases evidence poor understanding of liability principles.

Personal injury firms without the right expertise to assess their work represent a significant professional negligence risk and PII exposure. This can result in poor care of vulnerable clients, business failures and regulatory breaches.

Accreditations and quality marksWith all the industry standards we are used to seeing from Lexcel and ISO as well as panel memberships and affiliation to industry organisations, not to mention CPD, why is our management of personal injury work failing so badly?

In my opinion, through more than five years of working with law firms to improve their risk management and profitability, it is clear that current schemes that have hitherto given firms comfort around their “performance management” are not

working nor are they fit for purpose. If they were then the sector would not require the significant financial and operational investment and consolidation that is currently taking place, nor would the real risk of collateral damage from professional negligence be so considerable.

Risk management and professional negligenceWe have worked with several law firms in financial distress, whether it is a downturn in turnover and profits or at the point when banks begin questioning whether salaries will be paid at the end of the month. We have seen the factors contributing to the failure of these businesses to thrive and have gained a good understanding of what the warning signs are.

Some of the most basic and commonplace errors we see include a failure to take detailed instructions from clients and advise them on the correct course of action, failure to understand the importance of assessing the limitation date accurately, recording and monitoring it and leaving the issue of proceedings to the last minute and either missing the limitation date or getting vital aspects wrong such as suing the correct defendant.

We also see firms who are instructing the wrong liability or quantum experts or who are not considering witness evidence and experts reports thoroughly and missing risk and value indicators. This can result in compromising liability and quantum valuations unnecessarily.

Often firms do not have the personnel needed to effectively risk manage their caseload. Maybe is it is a new area to them and staff don’t have the skills, or maybe they are relying on lateral hires who are not equipped to deal properly with specialist cases in areas such as clinical negligence, industrial disease and serious injury.

Failure to keep detailed records of conversations, advice given or thought processes is also a common problem. An audit

trail is vital for effective risk management and can be invaluable if a claim is presented years after the file has closed or the conducting fee earner has left. Not having appropriate risk management in place in terms of technical auditing of claims as opposed to process auditing is also a problem. Do internal review mechanisms know the difference between correct and incorrect legal advice? Or do they simply tick the box that “some” advice has been given within the past 28 day period that satisfies an industry accredited quality management principle?

A big challenge we face is that there will be personnel who are blissfully unaware that they are actually unqualified to carry out a particular aspect of personal injury work or risk management. They may not realise that they have the ability to cause significant damage over a matter of days or years which, once exposed, can open up a can of worms in terms of culpability. Business owners should be truthful and ask themselves whether they are confident that they are risk managing effectively and if not what could they do to enable a sounder night’s sleep? Certainly it is important to ensure a culture of honesty and openness where fee earners are encouraged to report issues to management.

It is impossible to safeguard your business against every potential mistake, however you can safeguard it against the cost of those mistakes by implementing effective risk management.

The current “checklists” and “audits” in today’s recognised quality standards are a far cry from the meaningful risk management needed. Risk management in all aspects of the sector should be analysed to the highest competence standards and measured in terms of knowledge, expertise and ethics.

Only with that will personal injury businesses be able to make robust decisions to enable them to continue to invest in or, if necessary, withdraw from the personal injury sector with confidence.


Personal injury, professional indemnity and profitby Lesley Graves

Personal injury (PI) lawyers are working in an era of fundamental and

evolutionary change. Major forces have been at play for some time now, and future, albeit different, pressures are unlikely to diminish this.

They have already delivered up some high-profilefailuresandM&Aheadlines.Wehavewitnessed pressure over inducements, costs, medical agencies and claims management companies – all aimed at taking the fat out of business and becoming more compliant and regulated.

A ‘boom or bust’ mentality has taken over in some quarters, but where are all the lawyers – the proper ones? And when will all this end so we have law firms that have both the legal and business expertise to make

We recently hosted a series of sector talks along with Weightmans Compli, Howden Windsor and Duff and Phelps, in London, Liverpool, Leeds, Manchester and Birmingham. The talks prompted some lively discussions and you will find a summary of Lesley’s key points from her talk ‘Back to basics with a business edge’ for those of you who couldn’t make it in person.


commercial but SRA-compliant decisions? The middle ground the sector needs to find is likely to be some way off.

This article is a whistle-stop tour of conditions afflicting the personal injury sector at the moment. I am going to start with deafness and end with cannibalism – with a whole host of other (sometimes undesirable) conditions in between.

My view is that it’s far from over yet, and I see market changes happening in law firms of all shapes and sizes that concern me as to the future viability of businesses that don’t address the basics, in particular:

1. The odd thing that is happening in NIHL work – seen by many as the crock of gold at the end of the rainbow but this could not be further from the truth (see article on page 10 ).

2. Astounding issues of poor management capability and on-the-ground expertise when it comes to running PI expertly, compliantly and profitably.

3. Failures to: record time accurately and provide a comprehensive file note of litigation progression; use the CPR to request interim payments on account of costs and disbursements; and draft bills of costs properly, leading to high fees spent on external costs lawyers.

4. Failure to ensure that legal fees are reasonable as law firms have been increasing their hourly rates in an attempt to shore up post LASPO losses due to fixed recoverable costs (FRC). Without a thought to justifying an increase and the resulting impact when a client has a part of their compensation award taken for a success fee is having a direct impact on the deductions from clients’ compensation. Increases in hourly rates, poorly explained CFAs and deductions from damages will lead to client complaints, and business and regulatory pain through solicitor own

client costs challenges under the Solicitors Act 1974. Beware of clients obtaining independent legal advice on this issue.

5. Secondary funding is re-entering the market with promises of cash flow certainty, but we’ve seen it all before and off-balance-sheet lending cannot ever be a plausible alternative to managing for cash by expert lawyers using the CPR and case law.

6. The ultimate issue is engaging with your client and being able to take instructions and prepare a witness statement. We used to do that and found it extremely effective, but today lawyers gripe endlessly about how they don’t have the time to do this. However, a note of a 10-30 minute telephone call can be easily transposed into a witness statement template and send out with a template letter for signature. Getting a signed document from your client means more certainty and less wiggle room in litigation. This is particularly important when we think about clause 49 of the Criminal Justice and Court Bill and the provisions on ‘fundamental dishonesty’.

The reality is that hardly any cases get to court because not many lawyers fight; if early on we take statements, obtain evidence to corroborate and explore strengths and weaknesses, we won’t get to the stage where ‘fundamental dishonesty’ is raised at the door of the court and a shambles ensues, with claims failing and painful costs orders.

7. The same goes for choosing experts – many leave it to agencies to choose and instruct an expert. It invariably goes wrong and no wonder: not having the right expert chosen and instructed in a CPR-compliant manner, nor instructions from your client, nor the documentation the expert needs equals a mess of some kind or another, with money and time wasted and a client not being treated with appropriate care.

8. Lack of litigation expertise – for years it was easy to make money in PI. Weighted in claimant lawyers’ favour, employing youngsters to sit behind a PC with prompts to tell them when to press a button has, let’s face it, made the sector millions. But post LASPO and FRC, we see a hardening within the insurance sector, more challenges to the validity of claims, and conduct and proportionality arguments. The net effect is claimants have to litigate and firms are struggling to find experienced litigators for fast-track matters.

Those that are out there are set to enjoy a renaissance; even though their costs recovery will be limited, expert fast-track litigators who have an eye for a winner and can play litigation to their client’s advantage will be able to whizz cases through, blind side their insurer opponent and make good money for their firm and themselves.

9. Cannibalism on the rise – we have seen lawyers eating lawyers at the acquisition feast table, usually because somewhere along the line the business model went wrong and the finances didn’t stack up. But now we are seeing lawyers suing lawyers. Why? Because they know that the dumbing-down of recent years has created a market of its own making with poorly negotiated liability settlements and undervalued compensation awards.

The good news

It’s not all doom and gloom. There is another way. There are many parts of the Jackson reforms that are positive and those claimant law firms that adopt a ‘back to basics’ approach to litigation, ensuring absolute focus on client care and getting the best result in liability, rehabilitation and compensation are thriving.


These firms are often heavily driven by low-value volume PI work, meaning a strong element of process, but it is underpinned by legal expertise at critical points, thus ensuring a proper evaluation of quantum and costs.

It is, in its way, simple: expert lawyers must lead a PI case at critical points to ensure optimum service delivery. Outdated technology, poor legal process and low-skilled fee earners often equate to undervaluing a PI case, which can be devastating to both the client and the firm.

Furthermore, the requirement to draft costs budgets in multi-track cases means lawyers must be expert in case and costs strategy. Costs lawyers cannot do this – and solicitors should not be outsourcing it to them.

Many firms are increasing their hourly rates and reducing their caseloads in multi-track work to ensure optimum outcomes in service delivery, and streamlining their process-driven volume work by bringing in expertise to reduce risk.

PI practice redefinedInnovation will be driven from a number of sources, including from new market entrants who bring a fresh outlook; existing firms who re-engineer their practices; and banks/funders, the SRA and professional indemnity insurers.

There are firms who consider their USP to be preserving clients’ damages. Those PI firms taking a percentage of damages may find they lose market share as a result. I think we will increasingly see lay clients avoiding a law firm that demands they give up part of their compensation award.

Specialism as a result of increased hourly rates in multi-track cases may be one way of ensuring clients can retain their full compensation and law firms can continue to be profitable, without putting the expense of their profitability partly at the door of injured clients.

Lessons from the insurance sectorThe claimant practitioner should look no further than defendant insurance practitioners to see how they have adapted their business models to compete.

A steady increase in compliance-driven governance, manifested in regular insurer audits, key performance indicators (KPIs) and service-level agreements (SLAs) have raised the bar in the insurance sector.

These firms are dependent upon price-sensitive insurer clients for their work, keen to ensure the highest quality standards are kept. They have had no option but to gear up to compete to retain and win insurance contracts. As a result, insurance-driven law firms use senior lawyers, often with 20+ years PQE, to defend complex cases at less than £150 per hour, and are still thriving. Their expertise is crucial, while the bulk lower-end PI work is process driven but underpinned by technical expertise to ensure the highest standards at low cost.

The crucial difference, however, is the end client; an injured person does not have the full weight of commercial pressure to bring to bear on the law firm it instructs. The individual cannot introduce SLAs and KPIs to ensure the have a quality driven and commercial legal service.

So can we truly say that there has been effective governance of those who deliver claimant PI services? As already noted, we have seen firms failing, selling up and bailing out of PI altogether, and the emergence of professional negligence claims. Would effective governance have ameliorated these trends?

Competitive advantageFor claimant law firms to survive, they need to consider their USP. Price, value and expertise will be critical to attract and maintain market share.

Behind every law firm sits its key stakeholders – banks/funders, professional indemnity insurers, the SRA and its customer base. All will expect more for less in the current climate, and driving efficiencies, client care and financial performance will be the key to future practice.

As a result of improved efficiency at all levels, combined with expertise at key trigger points, and not using part of clients’ compensation to bolster profits, law firms may be able to set a new standard in service delivery fit for business.

The future of PIIt is a truism to say that the legal sector is not immune from economic pressure and competition, and the claimant PI industry proves the point. PI does have a future but it is likely to be a future that bears very little resemblance to what it has looked like for many firms in the last decade.

Expert support for personal injury and clinical negligence lawyersto maximise client outcomes and increase profit. WhyUse Citadel Law?

• We advise on the risk management of complex claims, ensuring key issues regarding liability, causation, rehabilitation and valuation are identified

• We are a dedicated law firm of serious injury experts with more than 150 years combined expertise at firms ranging from Irwin Mitchell to Pannone

Team members

• Lesley Graves formerly a partner at Alexander Harris and Irwin Mitchell was ‘Legal 500’ rated as “specialist”, “catastrophic and military expert” and “a respected brain and spinal injury specialist and has been involved in a number of highly publicised cases” and an APIL Fellow, SIA, Headway and CBIT Solicitor.

• Stephanie Forman has over 25 years of clinical negligence expertise at the highest level, her opinion being regularly sought out by lawyers and the medical profession. She is a member of The Association for the Victims of Medical Accidents and The Law Society’s Specialist Clinical Negligence Panel.

• Scott Lister began his career in nursing in 1992 and progressed to senior regitered nurse in intensive and coronary care and as regional transplant co-ordinator in London. He then qualified as a solicitor with Irwin Mitchell and is a current AvMA Information Line volunteer. Scott‘s senior nursing and now legal background gives him a unique ability to look at clinical negligence cases from both sides and his easily accessible medical and legal insight is hard to beat. Scott runs his own business, Apex Health Associates with critical care nurse Jamie Borg and Rhian Evans (MBA, RGN Dip) and is a member of the expert witness service. Their insight for the team is invaluable.

• Edel Rome brings over 15 years experience of a wide range of clinical negligence cases at firms such as Alexander Harris and Potter Rees. As well as being a senior lecturer at BPP College of Professional Studies in Manchester, lecturing on civil litigation, personal injury and clinical negligence, Edel is also a Deputy District Judge on the North West Circuit and a GMC investigation committee panel member.

• Adrienne de Vos has over 30 years of personal injury expertise at the highest level, and as a tribunal judge on cases involving mental incapacity and serious injuries, her astute and measured approach is highly valued by both our clients and team members – as nothing escapes her tenacious review.

WhatWe help you achieve• Maximise your clients’ claims whilst building up your personal and professional skills

to be a specialist serious injury lawyer

• Enhance your client care and technical knowledge

• Learn how to run multi-track and catastrophic injury cases to increase competence with “on the job” mentoring gaining CPD within the SRA’s new regulatory framework

• Learn how to case and cost plan effectively

• Have more effective conversations and negotiations with your opponent

• Instructing experts, building the case, supporting your client to maximise profitability and case plan with proportionality, conduct and commerciality at the forefront of your mind

HowOur support works• We review your cases with you and provide practical, immediate results and

generate increased chargeable time, case plans and cash flow

• We integrate documents and workflows into your current case management system to increase productivity

• We provide a dedicated team with video conferencing, telephone, email and on-site support and training to meet the needs of your lawyers and your serious injury claims

Testimonial"Citadel Law have helped us up skill in our Serious Personal Injury Department. When the traditional approach would be to recruit a highly experienced lawyer in-house, Citadel came in, assessed, prioritised, took action and reported back, whilst simultaneously delivering training, providing case plans and white-labelling work so that we recovered a proportion of their fees. As a result of our collaboration with Citadel we have reviewed systems and processes and up skilled a number of case handlers within our team who have learnt very positively from their contact with Lesley. She is able to inject structure and positivity into a team, pulling them together and empowering them to achieve. Citadel provides a commercially viable and eminently practical solution in an ever-challenging sector."

Joanna Kingston Davies. CEO ~ Lees Solicitors.

Developing skills in complexinjury & clinical negligence claims


Expert support for personal injury and clinical negligence lawyersto maximise client outcomes and increase profit. WhyUse Citadel Law?

• We advise on the risk management of complex claims, ensuring key issues regarding liability, causation, rehabilitation and valuation are identified

• We are a dedicated law firm of serious injury experts with more than 150 years combined expertise at firms ranging from Irwin Mitchell to Pannone

Team members

• Lesley Graves formerly a partner at Alexander Harris and Irwin Mitchell was ‘Legal 500’ rated as “specialist”, “catastrophic and military expert” and “a respected brain and spinal injury specialist and has been involved in a number of highly publicised cases” and an APIL Fellow, SIA, Headway and CBIT Solicitor.

• Stephanie Forman has over 25 years of clinical negligence expertise at the highest level, her opinion being regularly sought out by lawyers and the medical profession. She is a member of The Association for the Victims of Medical Accidents and The Law Society’s Specialist Clinical Negligence Panel.

• Scott Lister began his career in nursing in 1992 and progressed to senior regitered nurse in intensive and coronary care and as regional transplant co-ordinator in London. He then qualified as a solicitor with Irwin Mitchell and is a current AvMA Information Line volunteer. Scott‘s senior nursing and now legal background gives him a unique ability to look at clinical negligence cases from both sides and his easily accessible medical and legal insight is hard to beat. Scott runs his own business, Apex Health Associates with critical care nurse Jamie Borg and Rhian Evans (MBA, RGN Dip) and is a member of the expert witness service. Their insight for the team is invaluable.

• Edel Rome brings over 15 years experience of a wide range of clinical negligence cases at firms such as Alexander Harris and Potter Rees. As well as being a senior lecturer at BPP College of Professional Studies in Manchester, lecturing on civil litigation, personal injury and clinical negligence, Edel is also a Deputy District Judge on the North West Circuit and a GMC investigation committee panel member.

• Adrienne de Vos has over 30 years of personal injury expertise at the highest level, and as a tribunal judge on cases involving mental incapacity and serious injuries, her astute and measured approach is highly valued by both our clients and team members – as nothing escapes her tenacious review.

WhatWe help you achieve• Maximise your clients’ claims whilst building up your personal and professional skills

to be a specialist serious injury lawyer

• Enhance your client care and technical knowledge

• Learn how to run multi-track and catastrophic injury cases to increase competence with “on the job” mentoring gaining CPD within the SRA’s new regulatory framework

• Learn how to case and cost plan effectively

• Have more effective conversations and negotiations with your opponent

• Instructing experts, building the case, supporting your client to maximise profitability and case plan with proportionality, conduct and commerciality at the forefront of your mind

HowOur support works• We review your cases with you and provide practical, immediate results and

generate increased chargeable time, case plans and cash flow

• We integrate documents and workflows into your current case management system to increase productivity

• We provide a dedicated team with video conferencing, telephone, email and on-site support and training to meet the needs of your lawyers and your serious injury claims

Testimonial"Citadel Law have helped us up skill in our Serious Personal Injury Department. When the traditional approach would be to recruit a highly experienced lawyer in-house, Citadel came in, assessed, prioritised, took action and reported back, whilst simultaneously delivering training, providing case plans and white-labelling work so that we recovered a proportion of their fees. As a result of our collaboration with Citadel we have reviewed systems and processes and up skilled a number of case handlers within our team who have learnt very positively from their contact with Lesley. She is able to inject structure and positivity into a team, pulling them together and empowering them to achieve. Citadel provides a commercially viable and eminently practical solution in an ever-challenging sector."

Joanna Kingston Davies. CEO ~ Lees Solicitors.

Developing skills in complexinjury & clinical negligence claims


The Citadel Lawclient experience

Citadel Law is the trading name of Citadel Law Limited which is a limited company, registered in England Number: 7204309, VAT Registration Number: 993972790. Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (the SRA) SRA Number: 551182. Our professional rules can be accessed on the SRA website (www.sra.org.uk). The registered o�ce of Citadel Law Limited is at3 Hardman Square, Spinning�elds, Manchester, M3 3EB where a list of directors names is open to inspection. Copyright © 2010-2015 Citadel Law Limited. All rights reserved.

Citadel Law is a unique regulated law firm set up in 2010, dedicated to advising law firms and key stakeholders that operate within the personal injury sector. Our clients tell us they feel more confident because we are a regulated law firm. As such we are driven by the highest standards and governance and operate within the highest regulatory framework with an absolute focus on putting the client first.

Our expert team has a breadth of expertise which spans the entire PI sector; enabling us to customise teams to fit perfectly with the aims and objectives of our clients’ individual projects and needs.

We are senior, experienced lawyers who have managed teams and been partners at well respected firms and are highly regarded within our own fields, from both claimant and defendant backgrounds.

Our expert costs advisors and consultants with backgrounds in the banking, insurance (BTE and ATE), medico-legal and credit hire sectors provide our clients with the leading edge to succeed.

We provide robust opinions on future potential, upsides and risks, based upon our assessment of the market underpinned by expert fact based analysis.

We are driven to improve the focus on client care and expertise as well as profit to ensure law firms are fit for business in an increasingly competitive and client driven market.

Our approach is simple. As a specialist law firm we place our clients’ business needs first.

For information about our people and our services, please visit: www.citadel-law.com

ContactTelephone: 0161 457 0285Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

Manchester2nd Floor, 3 Hardman Square, Spinning�elds, Manchester M3 3EB.

LondonCitadel Law, 200 Aldersgate, London EC1A 4HD.

Rede�ning the lawyers who make a di�erence.

citadel insider spring 2015

Documents

citadel law limited

law firms

citadel team

personal injury sector

issue of citadel insider

complex injury

pi market

legal advice