Personal Injury Settlement meeting in law library?

trad

There seems to be a perception that these meetings are for the clients benefit. They are for the benefit of the barristers who are making a tidy sum during their lunch hour.

Is their client in a lunch hour meeting not worthy of the same level of attention as the cleints in their court cases? They do not hold these meetings pro bono. If they are bieng (well) paid for their time they should at least give their client their full attention as opposed to squeezing them in between their lunch and an afternoon session in a court case.

drkpower

trad wrote: »

There seems to be a perception that these meetings are for the clients benefit. They are for the benefit of the barristers who are making a tidy sum during their lunch hour.

Is their client in a lunch hour meeting not worthy of the same level of attention as the cleints in their court cases? They do not hold these meetings pro bono. If they are bieng (well) paid for their time they should at least give their client their full attention as opposed to squeezing them in between their lunch and an afternoon session in a court case.

It is simply a matter of practicalities. Getting 2 barristers, 2 solicitors (and possibly two claims handlers) free for a meeting during court hours is extremely difficult. Even if and when you do, if one party has a case that unexpectedly runs longer than expected (quite common), or has to take on an urgent case (ie. an injunction, Habeas Corpus), the meeting gets cancelled. Is that in the client's interest? What would your view be if you had a settelment meeting arranged for months and it was cancelled on a day's notice?

So please have a think about the various different dynamics before jumping to the easy and lazy answer. It merely shows up some latent bitterness on your part.

trad

It is not the lazy answer on my part nor latent bitterness. My meeting was in 2001 and my barristers fee was £500 which by anyone's standards is not bad for a meeting during your lunch hour.

My gripe is that in my opinion Barristers see Court work as their bread an butter and lunchtime meetings as the cream.

Al I eluded to was that as a client whose insurance company paid a not inconsiderable fee should get the same deference as a client whose case is going before a Judge.

As you can see the OP's experience was not dis-simular to mine yet 8 years later. I have no doubt there are many excellent Barristers in the Law Library who are very diligent and perhaps, myself and the OP got 2 guys in the middle of a very busy day whose mind was elsewhere in an important case. Be that as it may, if a service provider cannot give his or her client the service they are being paid for they should decline the work and pass it on to a less busy service provider.

As to meetings being cancelled due to other important work, I would rather a cancellation that some one negotiating on my behalf who is clockwatching or rehearsing their address to the Court rather than concentrating on my case.

c4cat

superscouse wrote: »

I went through this a couple of years ago.

This is exactly how it happened, draw your own conclusions.

My solicitor/barrister meets me in the hall and says he is in negotiations with their solicitor/barrister.

He is going in to negotiate......

Comes back 10 mins later, they are offering this blah, blah BUT BEFORE YOU SAY ANYTHING, I will go back and see if I can do better.

10 mins passes, same story again. They offer this.... BUT BEFORE YOU SAY ANYTHING, I will go back and see if I can do better.

Back and forth about three times and then I am offered a final offer.

At this stage, I am grinning from ear to ear.

This actually happened.

And I hadthe same exact same thing happen.........to me too plus I had the settlement cheque by friday the same week too, goodluck

drkpower

trad wrote: »

It is not the lazy answer on my part nor latent bitterness. My meeting was in 2001 and my barristers fee was £500 which by anyone's standards is not bad for a meeting during your lunch hour.

My gripe is that in my opinion Barristers see Court work as their bread an butter and lunchtime meetings as the cream.

You obviously had a bad experience and Im sure you are not alone. But the problem is that you have let the bad experience result in a multitude of misinterpretations.

For a start, £500, if that is what he charged for the meeting alone is outrageous and you shouldnt have paid. The likelihood is that £500 was the total fee for the case. How long do you think it took him to read into your case, ascertain the relevant law, consider liability (not in your case) and caiusation and come to a view on quantum?

Second, rather than court work being the bread & butter, in most junior counsel's work (who would usually run a settlement in low value RTA case), it is entirely the other way round. Settlements and drafting work are the bread & butter, courtwork is the cream.

And finally, while you may prefer a cancellation to an unprepared barrister, there are a few other parties to consider (including the other side). Perhaps rather than inconvenioencing everyone around you, you should make sure your solicitor gets you someone who will listen to you.

Toots

This thread is going off on a tangent again, lets keep the replies relevant to Millymoo's original question, not debating barristers' motives for having meetings during lunch hour.

trad

Toots, where are we going off topic? Millymoo gave the outcome of his / her meeting at post 22. Surely that was the time to close the thread if you consider it is going off topic.

If you have been through the system we are discussing you would see the pro's and con's of how meetings are arranged. The purpose of the meeting is to agree compensation for the victim. How an in what circumstances the meeting is held is highly relevant to the outcome. For the proferssionals involved it is another case in a possible heavy case load, for the injured party it is the final part of a possibly life changing event that has played out over the previous years and may have long term affect on their daily lives. For my part I submit that the matter should be dealt with with the deference it deserves, not by a poorly carried out discussion in a very public place.

As to my comments on my case, as a former Garda I have prosecuted several thousand cases and have come up against some of the finest legal minds in the law library and I know when I come across an unprepared one. Hopefully this thread will prompt others who will be going through such meeting to ask more questioins of their legal team and ensure they are well prepared for the case.

Toots

trad wrote: »

Toots, where are we going off topic? Millymoo gave the outcome of his / her meeting at post 22. Surely that was the time to close the thread if you consider it is going off topic.

If you have been through the system we are discussing you would see the pro's and con's of how meetings are arranged. The purpose of the meeting is to agree compensation for the victim. How an in what circumstances the meeting is held is highly relevant to the outcome. For the proferssionals involved it is another case in a possible heavy case load, for the injured party it is the final part of a possibly life changing event that has played out over the previous years and may have long term affect on their daily lives. For my part I submit that the matter should be dealt with with the deference it deserves, not by a poorly carried out discussion in a very public place.

As to my comments on my case, as a former Garda I have prosecuted several thousand cases and have come up against some of the finest legal minds in the law library and I know when I come across an unprepared one. Hopefully this thread will prompt others who will be going through such meeting to ask more questioins of their legal team and ensure they are well prepared for the case.

There have already been two warnings about keeping on topic and not arguing on this thread. My previous post was the third (and final) warning. This thread/forum is not the place to debate the pros and cons of how the meetings are arranged, however there is a Legal Discussion Forum where you can continue to discuss this if you wish.