Thursday, June 28, 2007

Why some personal injury clients suck!

Im going through a bad patch at the moment regarding my faith in clients. Im referring to personal injury victims who can be classified in two very different categories :-

Those that are GENUINE and those that are FAKE

Its stating the bleeding obvious to some but here is my classification of both types:

GENUINE clients
Will (usually) have injuries you can see, feel or identify without much debate
Will not be able to work (but I dont rule out those that have no choice but to work)
Will be desparate for treatment / physio / therapy
Will be grateful for almost everything you do for them
Will be anxious and apprehensive about the legal process
Will be "clingy" and sometimes overly so - high maintenance in other words
Will induce sympathy from most claim related people / experts they encounter
Will usually be left with long term problems or vulnerabilities
Will be grateful upon conclusion of the case and thank you warmly for your advice
Will give you a degree of job satisfaction
Will usually guarantee you a decent bill of costs

FAKE clients:
Will call you on the day of the accident to start their claim
Will ask you how much their claim is worth - almost immediately
Will never call you or ask for advice
Will always moan when you do speak
Will never return / sign key documents until pushed to do so
Will want to settle the case in the shortest time possible
Will never be happy with whatever settlement you get them - "my mate got more"
Will never EVER thank you

Guess what. In my line of work I come across roughly a 50/50 split in terms of the fakers and the genuine.
I think that most law firms make a packet off the back of people that are clearly winging it and playing the system - in the PI field this is definitely the case. Im not too fussed about the ethics of this but occasionally, just occasionally, it irks.

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

PAT testing - is your firm up to speed?

Portable Appliance Testing is not something I would like to bang on about on this blog but I have been charged with arranging the tests for our law firm - weve been a bit slow in embracing this legal requirement. A systematic PAT testing regime is an important part of general health & safety in the workplace

Its an odd situation because I say legal requirement but in fact PAT testing itself is not a legal requirement - its the need to take "precautions" to avoid electrical injury / death that makes the issue so important to ALL businesses. The need to test portable appliances can apply to any business, whether you are a small time mobile hairdresser, landlord, shop owner or a big business.

The following list represents some of the key legislation that applies (there is more out there)

The Health & Safety at Work Act 1974, The Management of Health & Safety at Work Regulations 1999 The Electricity at Work Regulations 1989

Ive been asking a few other business contacts whether their firms are fully protected and tested annually. Surprisingly some medium - ish firms are not tested and do not have the labels or certificates required. Others test only every 2 or 3 years which considering the hammering taken by the average PC - simply isnt enough

Check for your own labels - if your equipment hasnt been tested recently - suggest it to your partner and gain either a slap or a brownie point.

Thursday, June 14, 2007

Are there any insurer based people out there that blog?

There is an increasing number of blawgers appearing in our little world (that be the UK legal world) but isnt it odd that you dont see many insurer based blogs.

I raise this because in my game they are the opposition and generally I dont have a lot of time for people that I encounter in day to day combat. That said there are some excellent operators and knowledgeable people on the defendant side of the fence.

So where are they?
Dont Insurance personnel have access to the web?
Dont they have views?

Course they do - so where are the blogs?

If you know of any - let me know. I'll gladly put them on my blogroll and trade punches.