The earlier post on Procter -v- Raley’s solicitors contained a submission on behalf of the defendant that it was necessary “in modern conditions” for solicitors to “commoditise” their advice to clients. The Court of Appeal were doubtful on that point because there was no evidence before the Court. The “economics” of the situation makes for interesting reading.
APPLYING THIS TO THE CASE IN QUESTION
According to the Mellor Hargreave’s Blog
“The fee income of Raleys as a result of handling these claims under the compensation scheme, which also included a scheme for respiratory disease illness, rose between 1999 and 2003 from £2.5 million to £15.7 million and £11.8 million for 2004. Mr Firth and Mr Barber the two senior equity partners took respectively as their share of the profit for the years 2003, 2004 and 2005 a total of £9.9 million and £7.2 million.”
THE ECONOMICS OF PRACTICE: IT IS ALWAYS CHEAPER TO GET THINGS RIGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE
Far be it for me to ponder on the economics of running a practice. However it appears likely that, for a tiny smidgeon, of that amount it would have been possible to hire at least one (and possibly several) fully qualified lawyers whose sole task was to explain settlements and offers personally to clients and ensure that the client understood what they could claim for. If I have misunderstood this I am sure that there is an accountant or solicitor out there who can put me right.