Interview
Email your opinions to
editorial@barkerbrooks.co.uk
offering upfront inducements. We don't, but that's simply a policy we have, not a criticism of those using them.
Would you agree that medical negligence is a clear growth area for solicitors such as yourselves given the higher levels of transparency being applied to the NHS? Given the training and knowledge needed in the field, is
it difficult to keep up with the pace of growth? Yes, medical negligence is our biggest growth area. But, like industrial disease work, it isn't an area of work that can be dealt with in the same way as RTA work. Firms coming into the market poorly equipped won't know they have a problem until two years in when multiple hundreds of thousands of pounds of WIP doesn't translate to fees because they don't have the vetting expertise. We built from the top down, with highly qualified lawyers leading the various teams.
What are your plans for the coming year? Carry on with what we are doing, acquiring and organically
growing. Sticking to core skills and areas rather than picking our perceived easy income streams. I see our positioning as niche with a strong regional and growing nationwide client base.
What do you think 2014 has in store for the PI market? More consolidation and casualties I imagine. Continuing lobbying
of the insurance market to reduce legal costs further, presumably with a renewed onslaught on the small claims limit. I also expect at some time the Government will turn their fire on the medical negligence market. It will be cheaper for them to restrict fees and limit representation and reduce scrutiny than it will be to fix the NHS, so I expect fee capping on lower value claims.
Do you believe that the small claims limit will be raised for PI cases? And what impact do you believe this will
have if it does go up? Probably, although I'm not sure it will be this year. It will knock 80% out of the market which has to be a major concern for all. I think it is already influencing a lot of exiting firms and also shaping firms’ strategy in targeting niche and high value work.
What do you make of the Mitchell decision? It's wholly unfair in principle. There's almost a retrospective
application of the law here with tales of existing cases having defendants making applications for non compliance they have to date been complicit in. There has already been a limited amount of relaxation of the decision but on the whole the message is clear; lower caseloads, front end preparation for claimants,
34 /Claims Magazine/Issue 11
Firms coming into themarket poorly equippedwon't knowthey have a problemuntilmultiple hundreds of thousands of pounds ofWIP doesn't translate to fees because they don't have the vetting expertise.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60