I strongly agree with Joshua Rozenberg’s attack on tribalism in the personal injury world: he’s right that it’s outrageous to criticise a lawyer’s nomination for an award on the grounds that you don’t like the outcome he’s achieved in a case. I’ve never been attracted to PI work myself (I’ve always thought the drafting dull, the personal stories harrowing and the process of converting disaster into money somewhat grotesque) on either side, but I’m certainly repelled by the attitude, shared by many, that one side in PI law always represents truth and justice while the other represents lies and wickedness. Interestingly, while trade unionists may often assume claimant lawyers are angels and defendant lawyers devils, doctors tend to see things the other way, believing that lawyers making medical negligence claims are vampires out to drain the NHS of funds.
can do case in accourt about this
http://aljadriya.blogspot.com
Taking 100 years from recognition of harm to banning asbestos is pretty bad. The ratio of lawyers’ fees to victims’ compensation is considerably worse. The people I know with plaques are far from symptom-free, and are being deprived of miniscule sums of compensation while lawyers appear to cream it.
Rozenberg is right to defend the cab-rank principle, but the legal profession’s collective behaviour hear is rank of a different sort. If he could point to how the profession had worked to acheive speedy compensation at low cost awarded on a reasonable basis, then he would be in a position to complain at the protests.
But you’re criticising the claimant lawyers, Brian – the side that objected to Rozenberg’s man just because he works for the other side.
Perhaps I should add to my reasons for avoiding PI the fact that some people think there’s good reason to hate PI lawyers whichever side they represent.