Personal Injury Settlement meeting in law library?

millymoo

Hi Guys,

I've recently been through a personal injury claim which PIAB decided not to investigate in full as the injury was ongoing.
Some time has passed and the insurance company and my solicitor and barrister have arranged us all to meet to hopefully settle in the law library in 3 weeks.
Can anyone tell me the procedure for this? And also, once settlement is reached, how long until you receive your awarded compensation?

The accident was two years ago and there has been many medicals etc in the interim so I'm hoping this is the end of the road, and the solicitor is confident the insurance are going to settle.

Thanks :rolleyes:

millymoo

Toots

Millymoo, please don't 'bump' your thread.

If nobody has replied, it's because nobody (who has read the thread so far) has an answer/advice. I see that you're new here, so please have a look through the Charter to see what's allowed here, and what's not. There was a thread on here fairly recently which is similar to yours. If you use the 'Search' function at the top of the forum, it will bring up related threads.

millymoo

Thanks Toots, and apologies

ScouseMouse

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.

millymoo

can i ask once this happened it actually took you to get a cheque? thanks for the reply, thats not so bad

millymoo

meant to say how long it took for cheque

ScouseMouse

From memory, it was just a couple of weeks.

It was a game. I personally believe it was decided before I even got there.

millymoo

oh it probably is...mine is slightly complicated so im not sure what will happen...but ill ask solicitor for best possible figure without court :mad:

millymoo

Anyone else an experience of this? It's fast approaching now
Thank you...

IsThatSo?

My experience of it was not as straightforward as Superscouse experienced.

We sat in a small room. Barrister went back and forth "negotiating". It made me understand the meaning of "hardball". Various insulting messages were sent back with the offers. We refused. We were called in the next day to make sure we were refusing!!! About 2 months later we got another offer out of the blue, no meetings etc.

TBH, these guys all know each other, and will go out to lunch after they have discussed your business. They do this every day and its just a job to them. I honestly do not believe that they are looking at "people" here. What we saw was just for show really, for us to see them going through the motions.

Have a look at the PIAB guidelines to get a rough idea of what your award should be and decide what the least amount you will take is. Its all about who has the hardest neck!!!!

millymoo

Thanks Isthisso. That is quite worrying. I was hoping the Barrister would be acting in my best interest for what has been and continues to be a very awkward injury. It really has affected my everyday life. WHo can even put a price on that eh?
God. :rolleyes:
Thanks. Any more experiences or of course legal responses would be most welcome

JD24

Your Solicitor / Barrister will be acting in your best interests. They do not go off and discuss your claim amongst each other when its all over!

They will give a rough estimate of what they think your claim is worth. The other side will offer considerably less and your solicitor / barrister will negoiate on your behalf to get you the best award - this is normal practice.

You can check out the Book of Quantum on PIAB's website but bear in mind this book is very much out of date.

At the end of the day, you have the final say. If your barrister / solicitor approachs you saying all we can get is X amount, we are recommending you take it and you decide not to take it then thats your call. It may have consequences down the line but thats another matter.

Have a little faith in your solicitor, they are looking to get you the best award they possibly can.

trad

I had a simular "meeting" about 8 years ago. An RTA where liability was not as issue. The barristers graceously squezed me in during their lunch hour. My barrister asked me how I was and how was I getting along so I said that he had read my file and he should know. I know a bluffer when I met one and my brief hadn't bothered to read my file over his sandwich.

He went off to his opposite number, came back with a derisory offer which I told him where to shove and that it would cost them more than that to present the case. I then had a go at my solicitor who hadn't bothered to chase up my medical expenses so for all intents and purposes it looked like I was a chancer.

There was a confab and I was then offered twice the initial offer but I am of the opinion with a properly prepared brief the compensation could have been more generous.

The law library is a big club and, in my opinion and in my case, the amount was agreed on the nod between both barristers and the rest was for show.


Make sure you solicitor and council is well versed in your case. It is significant to you but will be minor in relation to some of the cases they deal with.

JD24

trad wrote: »

The barristers graceously squezed me in during their lunch hour

All settlement meetings at place at lunchtime i.e. 1 pm unless otherwise requested.

Your barrister probably asked you how you were doing now because your last medical report was months old...

trad

How nice for them to have a grand sandwich. I have a wealth of court experience and I know a bluffer when I see one but fair play for you sticking up for your profession.

I am just giving my personal experience. I am sure the law library is full of diligent, determined council but I felt I didn't get the cream of the crop.

JD24

trad wrote: »

How nice for them to have a grand sandwich. I have a wealth of court experience and I know a bluffer when I see one but fair play for you sticking up for your profession.

I am just giving my personal experience. I am sure the law library is full of diligent, determined council but I felt I didn't get the cream of the crop.

I may work in the legal profession but I am not a Solicitor or Barrister. Im not sticking up for anything but simply stating facts. With your wealth of court experience, surely this is something you would know??

Anyway thats your personal experience and its unfortunate you did not have a legal team you had trust in.

trad

I don't know how I would assume your occupation form your user name, I assumed it form the tone of your reply and like I said there are plenty of good briefs out there so get one, not just a buddy of your solicitor.

JD24

trad wrote: »

I don't know how I would assume your occupation form your user name, I assumed it form the tone of your reply and like I said there are plenty of good briefs out there so get one, not just a buddy of your solicitor.

I dont know how you would assume my occupation from my name either but you make an assumption nonetheless and I was simply correcting you.

If you had bothered reading the thread you would know I am replying to give advice not looking for it. I'm not looking for "a good brief" so I dont need to "get one". Its a shame you didnt take your own advice with your own claim/claims....

Toots

Guys let's try to keep the arguing off thread please.

dermot_sheehan

Meetings take place at lunch as it stops a meeting having to be cancelled by either side at the last minute if they're in court that day.

Your legal team is trying to get the best for you. It's both a matter of professional responsibility to represent a client to the best of our abilities and professional pride. No one wants to be known as the person whose a light touch for insurance companies.

As has been stated settling a personal injuries case is not an exact science. Basically what both sides are trying to do is predict how much the case would fetch when decided by a judge. There are many variables but in general one can gauge general damages by looking at the medical reports.

If you were not satisfied with your solicitor, you a perfectly entitled to change your solicitor (provided they are paid for the work they have done for you up to then). You are also free to ask your solicitor to instruct different counsel.

millymoo

Thanks eveyone, just want to say that we settled the case. It was about 10k less than I was hoping for but thats life. I felt the Barrister had other places to be to be honest, even my solicitor wasnt too impressed with him. ON the third 'final' offer, I reluctantly accepted, and low and behold the SOLICITOR went in and got another 2k. So so much for absolute final offer.
Its mad up there, you hear about 20 different peoples cases just sitting on the wall.
Thank you for all the advice

kaiser sauze

JD24 wrote: »

They do not go off and discuss your claim amongst each other when its all over!

You must be a solicitor/barrister or else you are incredibly naive.

kaiser sauze

JD24 wrote: »

I may work in the legal profession but I am not a Solicitor or Barrister.

trad

Sounds like a simular experience to mine as already posted.

JD24

kaiser sauze wrote: »

You must be a solicitor/barrister or else you are incredibly naive.

Like I said before I am not a Solicitor or Barrister. Your statement that I must be "incredibly naive" is incredibly insulting.

I work in the legal profession and know how it works. You are clearly going on a personal experience and well within your rights to share that experience but just because you may have had a bad team does not mean that all invovled in the legal profession are the same. I am not saying they are all above board, you only have to look at the papers to know that some are not, but there are a lot of genuine solicitors out there. If your not happy with the solicitor or barrister you have, you simply change.

kaiser sauze

JD24 wrote: »

Like I said before I am not a Solicitor or Barrister. Your statement that I must be "incredibly naive" is incredibly insulting.

I work in the legal profession and know how it works. You are clearly going on a personal experience and well within your rights to share that experience but just because you may have had a bad team does not mean that all invovled in the legal profession are the same. I am not saying they are all above board, you only have to look at the papers to know that some are not, but there are a lot of genuine solicitors out there. If your not happy with the solicitor or barrister you have, you simply change.

You're incorrect about me being involved in any case of any kind, however, I do have professional dealings with many in the legal profession.

Toots

Guys as I said before, please keep arguments etc off thread and keep posts on topic. Otherwise I'll lock the thread.

thebiglad

My role used to be to settle claims for an Insurer in the law library so I can talk from much experience - I am not a Lawyer of Barrister.

Generally if there is a plan to meet then there is an intention to reach an agreement - both sides have a valuation.

It is up to the Plaintiff's side (i.e. your team) to state how much they want - they will overstate the figure, often by 100% - therefore I would understate my offer - think in terms of any negotiation - buying a car - if you want it for €10k do you offer €9,900 as your opening bid.

Both sides have an upper and lower bracket in mind, generally when the 2 sides fall within these brackets a settlement is agreed which will be referred back to you by your Barrister (this is why you have to be there). If the final offer is too low in Barrister's opinion he will tell you so, you are still entitled to accept the offer.

Settlement negotiations have been known to fail over issues such a Barrister or Solicitor fees too.

The settlements are held during lunch recess of the Courts, this is only time when all parties are guaranteed to be free - you are probably going to have a Barrister on both sides - trying to find space in both of their schedules when court is in session would be a challenge and could lead to cancellation.

The procedure is not perfect but I can assure you from experience your Barrister whilst they may have an idea what your claim is really worth (which they will not share with you as it builds an expectation) will not have pre-agreed a settlement.

Just relax and if what both sides feel is a reasonable settlement is reached your claim settles, if not, well you get to come back another day or, the case is listed and the legals get more money!

There is no need to be cynical of the system:)

drkpower

trad wrote: »

I had a simular "meeting" about 8 years ago. An RTA where liability was not as issue. The barristers graceously squezed me in during their lunch hour. My barrister asked me how I was and how was I getting along so I said that he had read my file and he should know. I know a bluffer when I met one and my brief hadn't bothered to read my file over his sandwich.

Awful lot of bitterness on this thread. Perhaps to dispel a few rumours:
1. Barristes tend to be in court at most times other than lunch or 4pm onwards. So,unfrotunately thats the only time that settlement meetings can occur. Im sure you would prefer that to a situation where your case is in court and your barrister/solictiors disappear off to a meeting?!
2. Solictiors and barristers would almost never discuss cases "afterwards"; first, its unethical, but more importantly, most PI cases of the type we are talking about here simply arent that interesting in the grand scheme of things.
3. Your barrister may not have been well prepared - that happens often, for sure.
4. However, he would have asked "how you are" because he may want your version of your current complaints (and/or may have no recent medical reports) so that he has some up-to-date knowledge of your condition in order to arm himself with this information for the purpose of negotiations in order to get a good settlement for you. How does it feel that you tied one arm behind his back in negotiations just to engage in a cheap shot?! :D
5. Barristers/solictiors can be lazy, can be unprepared, sure, but remember, by and large, the bigger your settlement, the bigger their fees, so best not to continually think of them as the enemy and damage your own claim just to make a juvenile point.

RGS

Cases are not settled before the negotiations commence as the insurance companies are the holders of the cheque book and the claims handler will not sanction a proposed settlement if the figures are in excess of his valuation.

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.