Accident Case - Settlement Meeting

zulfikarMD

Hi legal experts,

I had a settlement meeting for my fatal road traffic accident claim with my solicitor, barrister and defendant's solicitor/negotiator today. And I felt barrister was completely sympathetic with insurance company then me and my wife who have lost 2 family members + suffered serious injuries. I have had no expereince with irish legal system and how it works specially when it comes to settlement meeting. I need advice, clarification or guidance on following points:

1. I am not sure if plaintiff is allowed to be in actual negotiation with insurer's solicitor/negotiator?

2. Who are barristers? Do they have extra special skills then solicitors? why they are involed in settlement meeting?

3. How should I approach next meeting/talk with my solicitor?

4. is there a catch that barrister is making money by setting up a low claim amount for a plaintiff?

Thank you.

coylemj

1. I am not sure if plaintiff is allowed to be in actual negotiation with insurer's solicitor/negotiator?

Typically you will interface with your solicitor and barrister and they will do the talking/negotiating with the other side so the answer is 'no', you are using your solicitor and particularly your barrister for their skills in this area. If you were let loose to negotiate directly with the other side you'd probably end up with significantly less than your people will extract for you.

2. Who are barristers? Do they have extra special skills then solicitors? why they are involed in settlement meeting?


Barristers are freelance legal practitioners who often specialise in certain areas, one of which is negotiating large settlements in insurance cases like yours. They are 'guns for hire' and are always used by insurance companies in serious cases like yours because if the compensation cannot be agreed in closed rooms you will be heading for a hearing in the High Court. Typically a case in the High Court is argued by barristers on both sides so if you're going to end up in the High Court you need to have your case fronted by a barrister.

3. How should I approach next meeting/talk with my solicitor?


Although I sympathise with you on your loss, you have effectively reached the stage where you're dealing with money and nothing else. You need to be guided by your solicitor and barrister as to what is a realistic number to expect in terms of raw cash. The other side will make an offer, your people will put this offer to you, if you accept that's the end of it, if you reject the offer they go back and look for more. It will probably offend you that the loss of your loved ones has come down to haggling over money but I'm afraid that's how the system works here and in most other countries.

If the other side won't rise to the money that you are prepared to accept it goes to a hearing in court where the judge will decide and he could decide to award you more or less than the other side's final offer before the court, it's a gamble and game of bluff.

4. is there a catch that barrister is making money by setting up a low claim amount for a plaintiff?

Highly unlikely, too many people in the insurance company and the legal profession would need to be in on that conspiracy and in a country like Ireland it would be common knowledge if it did happen, it doesn't.

zulfikarMD

coylemj wrote: »

If you were let loose to negotiate directly with the other side you'd probably end up with significantly less than your people will extract for you.

In my case barrister was more sort of discussing stuff which was irrelevant to the case or stuff which was offending to me and my wife. This prompted me to raise a question why plaintiff is not allowed to directly interact with the insurer/defendant's solicitor/barrister/negotiator?

coylemj wrote: »

Typically a case in the High Court is argued by barristers on both sides so if you're going to end up in the High Court you need to have your case fronted by a barrister.

So, if your barrister is more sympathetic towards insurer's money your case is going to get screwed?

coylemj wrote: »

It will probably offend you that the loss of your loved ones has come down to haggling over money but I'm afraid that's how the system works here and in most other countries.

Certainly, i felt very embarrassed/offended putting worth for 2 lost lives, my wife's suffering and my suffering.

coylemj wrote: »

Highly unlikely, too many people in the insurance company and the legal profession would need to be in on that conspiracy and in a country like Ireland it would be common knowledge if it did happen, it doesn't.

I respect your answer but honestly i feel deal is done before plaintiff is even come to court.

Tom Young

We do not allow the giving or taking of legal advice here.

OP Talk to your solicitor. It is what he is paid for. Those giving advice, while I take the point that it is more practical guidance, you should be very careful in suggesting actual approaches.

Tom

coylemj

Tom Young wrote: »

Those giving advice, while I take the point that it is more practical guidance, you should be very careful in suggesting actual approaches.

Tom

I'm giving the OP background guidance as to how the system works and the respective roles of the individuals he is dealing with, I don't think I've come remotely close to suggesting that he do or not do anything or to adopt a particular approach.

Tom Young

Sure and I've not closed the thread. I am not criticising that. I am merely stating that reliance on advice or guidance out of context can be problematic.

coylemj

OP, the barristers on each side probably know each other as Ireland is a small country and those guys probably encounter one another every other day. As this is probably your first encounter with this type of litigation you may feel it strange that they are not throwing punches at each other but that's not how the system works.

Each of the barristers is engaged in the case with a different brief, the other side to minimize damages, your side to maximize them but that doesn't mean they can't be civil to one another and sometimes a bit of charm and social chit-chat on the part of your barrister can loosen things up and make for an easier path to a satisfactory outcome, I would not interpret it as a sign that your position is being compromised or that your barrister is not doing his best for you.

Talk to your solicitor if you're uncomfortable with how things are going, he is there to act as your eyes and ears to the proceedings.

Reloc8

Zufikar, I'm sorry for your loss.

zulfikarMD wrote: »

In my case barrister was more sort of discussing stuff which was irrelevant to the case or stuff which was offending to me and my wife. This prompted me to raise a question why plaintiff is not allowed to directly interact with the insurer/defendant's solicitor/barrister/negotiator?

Plaintiff is perfectly entitled to directly interact with an insurer or negotiator or legal team. There is nothing to stop you doing so. You are also entitled for instance to not seek medical advice concerning your health, no more so than you are obliged to seek legal advice and representation. If you do seek to do this however, your legal team will quite properly refuse to act for you - there would be no point in them doing so anyway. You can't have it both ways - either you have representation or you do it yourself.

zulfikarMD wrote: »

So, if your barrister is more sympathetic towards insurer's money your case is going to get screwed?

Yes.

zulfikarMD wrote: »

Certainly, i felt very embarrassed/offended putting worth for 2 lost lives, my wife's suffering and my suffering.

The law in such cases governs simply the appropriate financial compensation for the consequences of bereavement. That is not to say that financial compensation can ever compensate for bereavement. Money is only money.

It may be that the law in your case applies so as to entitle you to financial compensation of far less significance than you feel you are entitled to, having regard to your personal loss. This is not an example of your legal team 'screwing you'. This is an example of the inadequacy of financial compensation to meet the loss of bereavement.

If a person who survived an accident was rendered quadraplegic, the law would currently give compensation for the injury of no higher than around €500,000, with further sums payable for the expense of suffering such an injury for the rest of one's life (wheelchairs, adapted accomodation etc.). This is a very low sum for such an injury. Where a person has died, it is impossible to compensate that specific person, clearly, and equally there is no further expense to that person.

Family members of the deceased in such cases will generally receive far, far, far, far, far less than the figure mentioned above - a very small fraction of it - and sometimes only recover the cost of the funeral expenses.

One exception is the case where a family loses through negligence the/a salary earner who was contributing financially to the household, as the law will compensate the family for the future loss of that salary. This does not seem to have been the case in your case.

In other words, if the sum discussed by your lawyers seemed low to you, there are very many legal reasons why that would be so. A low figure in this case is not indicative of a corrupt legal team.

As regards your own injuries, ask of your lawyers why they are advising you in respect of sums lower than you expected. What are the legal reasons for this ? The amount of damages for personal injuries which a court will award is generally not difficult to assess. That doesn't mean it will be as much as you would like, but the point is that you don't get the amount of 'what I think I should get' but what the judge thinks you should get. If you don't accept the advice your given, don't follow it. You don't have to settle your case.

In the event of you discharging your legal team don't however be surprised if they expect and are entitled to be paid for the work done on your behalf thus far.

zulfikarMD wrote: »

I respect your answer but honestly i feel deal is done before plaintiff is even come to court.

No one can say that you shouldn't feel like that as your feelings are a matter for yourself. If you say you feel this about your own case then that is extremely unfortunate, as you will likely carry that regret for a long time and it will upset you.

The cause of it is likely a breakdown between you and your legal team, a failure to explain things properly to you, a failure on your part (for which you are not to be blamed) to understand the situation or a deep seated distrust of lawyers, held by yourself. It really would be better to discuss these feelings with your solicitor, and if you are truly not happy with your representation, you can always instruct different lawyers, or request your solicitor to instruct different barristers. Again, the terms on which you can do so are for you to discuss with your solicitor.

If you mean to say that 'the deal is done' in all or most cases before a plaintiff comes to court, then I completely disagree with you and suggest that there is absolutely no truth in such an assertion, or evidence to sustain it.

Again, I am sorry for your loss and hope that you and your wife and the rest of your family have happiness restored to you in the future.

zulfikarMD

All thank you for your valuable insight into legal process.To add to my previous post I Just had a second settlement meeting and I am amazed that intial offer that was made is increased now by about 35-40%. This time barrister was more sympathetic towards me and my wife then defendants/insurer. But still his approach was to save money for insurer and convience us to accept the offer as before. As stated before no financial claim can compensate loss of my mother and my wife's mother!

Victor

I'm sorry to hear of your loss.

zulfikarMD wrote: »

I respect your answer but honestly i feel deal is done before plaintiff is even come to court.

While you are certainly entitled to your time in court, perhaps consider what is most useful for your family (a settlement could help pay for extra bereavement counselling or family activities (e.g. you could see distant relatives more often), pay off debts and make life a little bit easier, especially when financial / practical things might be difficult and the stress of them not helping you when you are dealing with bereavement).

Dragging things through court can be time-consuming, expensive and emotionally difficult. I assume there has been a criminal case, so the other driver will have not got away with things and you don't need to make a statement that your family was wronged.

However, by avoiding court, the insurance company will pay less in legal costs and may be willing to pay slightly more to you. they know your side knows this and will try to manipulate matters. However, you side is there to argue back, knowing that an out of court settlement is probably best for all involved.

nuac

Zulfikar - you should discuss these issues with your solicitor and barrister. Plaintiffs' legal teams do the best for their client in negotiations.

An increased offer is not unusual. there is no guarantee of an increased award if you incurr the further expense and time of going for a full hearing.

If your legal team is advising you to accept the offer it may be because of a possibility that the case may not run well in court.

zulfikarMD

Victor wrote: »

Dragging things through court can be time-consuming, expensive and emotionally difficult. I assume there has been a criminal case, so the other driver will have not got away with things and you don't need to make a statement that your family was wronged.

However, by avoiding court, the insurance company will pay less in legal costs and may be willing to pay slightly more to you. they know your side knows this and will try to manipulate matters. However, you side is there to argue back, knowing that an out of court settlement is probably best for all involved.

Hi Victor,
I understand that taking any case to court means more hassle, more time and more expense and emotionally difficult. Yes, defendant pleaded guilty and have been awarded 2 years jail with 2 years driving ban. Also, I agree that avoiding court could save insurance company significant legal cost (specially in my case where they have loss-loss situation).

Thank you for your reply again.

Zulfiqar