Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Supermacs open Letter to Solicitors

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    The DayDream
    Registered Users Posts: 508 ✭✭✭The DayDream


    Imagine thinking Pat McDonagh built Supermac's so that he could achieve his dreams of creating jobs and enriching the Revenue Dept.

    Anyway the one I worked in not a single manager and probably only 25% of the staff in total were Irish.


  • Options
    #63
    lawrencesummers
    Registered Users Posts: 8,518 ✭✭✭lawrencesummers


    Tis easy spot the solicitors in this thread.


  • Options
    #64
    Grolschevik
    Registered Users Posts: 3,472 ✭✭✭Grolschevik


    Calahonda52 wrote: »
    all of you KBW/ACE's

    ???


  • Options
    #65
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users Posts: 20,929 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    It’s hard to side with people who send objection letters from dead people, but I’ll side with him on compo culture


  • Options
    #66
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,275 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    lawrencesummers wrote: »
    Tis easy spot the solicitors in this thread.

    I bet you couldn't.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    lawrencesummers wrote: »
    Tis easy spot the solicitors in this thread.

    Because they know the subject and don't talk ****e ?


  • Options
    #68
    lawrencesummers
    Registered Users Posts: 8,518 ✭✭✭lawrencesummers


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    Because they know the subject and don't talk ****e ?

    Because they know the system and don’t want to change it.


  • Options
    #69
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    lawrencesummers wrote: »
    Because they know the system and don’t want to change it.

    They still know the law and the system though.


  • Options
    #70
    lawrencesummers
    Registered Users Posts: 8,518 ✭✭✭lawrencesummers


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    They still know the law and the system though.

    That’s what I said.

    They know it. It’s the gravy train that keeps on giving.

    There is no interest in changing it because that would have financial implications for all the snouts feasting at the trough.


  • Options
    #71
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,191 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    lawrencesummers wrote: »
    That’s what I said.

    They know it. It’s the gravy train that keeps on giving.

    There is no interest in changing it because that would have financial implications for all the snouts feasting at the trough.
    Not at all. Legal change is generally good for lawyers; it makes more work.

    In this case, McDonagh is complaining about the standard "letter before proceedings" that he gets from solicitors when a claim is initiated, which basically says "our client is going to bring a claim against you. Better call in your insurers". He complains that the letters are identical; that the don't set out details of what happened, of what injuries were suffered, of what negligence or other wrong is alleged, or of what evidence is going to be produced. He complains that solicitors won't really engage with issues like this until he, too has enaged a solicitor (or his insurers want).

    What he wants, obviously, is for solicitors to have to write a much fuller opening letter, setting out a great deal more information, and the for them toe enage directly with him rather than with his lawyers. But this would obviously put costs up; there'd be much mor work involved in writing the initial letter, and much much more work involved in dealilng directly with lay defendants who are not supported by legal advisers. Ad of course, the more work they do, the more solicitors charge. So, if the change McDonagh called for were made, there would be more work for lawyers and they would earn more money.

    Remember, McDonagh's object here is not to reduce lawyers' work or lawyer's earnings. It's to reduce the amount he pays out in damages, or in insurance for damages.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    whippet
    Registered Users Posts: 7,673 ✭✭✭whippet


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    What he wants, obviously, is for solicitors to have to write a much fuller opening letter, setting out a great deal more information, and the for them toe enage directly with him rather than with his lawyers. But this would obviously put costs up; there'd be much mor work involved in writing the initial letter, and much much more work involved in dealilng directly with lay defendants who are not supported by legal advisers. Ad of course, the more work they do, the more solicitors charge. So, if the change McDonagh called for were made, there would be more work for lawyers and they would earn more money.

    but that would be costs on the applicants side - and if it is a valid successful claim this will be borne out with the requisite compensation.

    Why should the recipient have to bear unnecessary legal costs up front for a claim that might not go anywhere?

    Why the need to bring in legal teams on all sides without even knowing the context of the matter at hand?


  • Options
    #73
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,191 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    whippet wrote: »
    but that would be costs on the applicants side - and if it is a valid successful claim this will be borne out with the requisite compensation.

    Why should the recipient have to bear unnecessary legal costs up front for a claim that might not go anywhere?

    Why the need to bring in legal teams on all sides without even knowing the context of the matter at hand?
    But equally, why should the complainant have to bear unnecessary legal costs up front for a matter that might settle as soon as a lawyer or an insurer looks at it?

    Regardless of whether each claim is successful or unsuccessful, if your objective is reducing legal costs then front-loading all the legal work is pretty much the opposite of the strategy you should be pursuing. McDonagh wants all the evidence laid out; that normally doesn't happen until the trial, and its avoided entirely in the large majority of cases, because they settle or are withdrawn before trial.

    The lawyers will be quids in on this scheme. Which, of course, may deliver other benefits that McDonagh values, or might be desirable for other reasons. I'm just pointing out that lawrencesummer's view that "lawyers will always oppose change" out of self-interest is misconceived since change is, generally, more good for lawyers than bad. And this change in particular would be.


  • Options
    #74
    lawrencesummers
    Registered Users Posts: 8,518 ✭✭✭lawrencesummers


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Not at all. Legal change is generally good for lawyers; it makes more work.

    In this case, McDonagh is complaining about the standard "letter before proceedings" that he gets from solicitors when a claim is initiated, which basically says "our client is going to bring a claim against you. Better call in your insurers". He complains that the letters are identical; that the don't set out details of what happened, of what injuries were suffered, of what negligence or other wrong is alleged, or of what evidence is going to be produced. He complains that solicitors won't really engage with issues like this until he, too has enaged a solicitor (or his insurers want).

    What he wants, obviously, is for solicitors to have to write a much fuller opening letter, setting out a great deal more information, and the for them toe enage directly with him rather than with his lawyers. But this would obviously put costs up; there'd be much mor work involved in writing the initial letter, and much much more work involved in dealilng directly with lay defendants who are not supported by legal advisers. Ad of course, the more work they do, the more solicitors charge. So, if the change McDonagh called for were made, there would be more work for lawyers and they would earn more money.

    Remember, McDonagh's object here is not to reduce lawyers' work or lawyer's earnings. It's to reduce the amount he pays out in damages, or in insurance for damages.



    Don’t mind your nonsense. We all know most of these claims are bollocyaks and the solicitors who do them work on a no win no fee basis.

    If it creates more work for the solicitors in the instance of them offering a no win no fee service then they have to absorb those costs themselves in the unlikely event that a claim be unsuccessful

    If solicitors get caught a few times for this work and no win then they will think twice about taking on **** cases, but as it stands any Joe soap can make a claim and any solicitor will send off their standard letter to start the claim in the hope that it enters into a quick insurance settlement.


  • Options
    #75
    arccosh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 624 ✭✭✭arccosh


    Effects wrote: »
    Or maybe he just wants to offer you a direct settlement, and avoid scummy solicitors making money out of both him and you?

    Is that possible?

    Worked in retail for over 6 years....

    This is how my management always dealt with claims...

    -X happens
    -Manager gets complaint and takes details
    -Gives them a call later in the day to see things are ok
    -Makes enquiries with staff and looks at cctv
    -if there is even a semblance of an issue, offer them X (X is dependant on the severity)
    -They accept and sign something basically saying they won't sue, has been with and without solicitors present, it was up to the claimee
    -everyone is happy

    If it was something that happened week s before, and the first management heard about it was via solicitors mail, they went in guns blazing

    one of our regular customers got a weekend golf trip for slipping on some spilled goods.... he wasn't hurt or anything, and actually didn't really make a complaint, just said he slipped and someone should clean it up, when we looked at it on CCTV, it looked like an awful fall ... I don't think he signed anything either, it was almost quid pro quo, but that's what happens when you engage with regular customers


  • Options
    #76
    lawrencesummers
    Registered Users Posts: 8,518 ✭✭✭lawrencesummers


    arccosh wrote: »
    Worked in retail for over 6 years....

    This is how my management always dealt with claims...

    -X happens
    -Manager gets complaint and takes details
    -Gives them a call later in the day to see things are ok
    -Makes enquiries with staff and looks at cctv
    -if there is even a semblance of an issue, offer them X (X is dependant on the severity)
    -They accept and sign something basically saying they won't sue, has been with and without solicitors present, it was up to the claimee
    -everyone is happy

    If it was something that happened week s before, and the first management heard about it was via solicitors mail, they went in guns blazing

    one of our regular customers got a weekend golf trip for slipping on some spilled goods.... he wasn't hurt or anything, and actually didn't really make a complaint, just said he slipped and someone should clean it up, when we looked at it on CCTV, it looked like an awful fall ... I don't think he signed anything either, it was almost quid pro quo, but that's what happens when you engage with regular customers




    That kind of thing doesn’t really help any of the legal profession get paid.


  • Options
    #77
    arccosh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 624 ✭✭✭arccosh


    lawrencesummers wrote: »
    That kind of thing doesn’t really help any of the legal profession get paid.

    we used to wipe away our tears of sadness with the money we saved


  • Options
    #78
    whippet
    Registered Users Posts: 7,673 ✭✭✭whippet


    Peregrinus wrote: »

    Regardless of whether each claim is successful or unsuccessful, if your objective is reducing legal costs then front-loading all the legal work is pretty much the opposite of the strategy you should be pursuing. McDonagh wants all the evidence laid out; that normally doesn't happen until the trial, and its avoided entirely in the large majority of cases, because they settle or are withdrawn before trial.
    .

    this is the bit that has stuck out to me as a non-legal person.

    So just because something is 'normally' done this way means that change is a bad thing. Why is a defendant wrong in wanting to know what he is being accused of unless he engages a legal professional / insurance company.

    Surely it's not unreasonable for someone to tell someone what they are accusing them of - without the assumption of having to involve insurance / legal teams.

    It's clear that McDonagh wants to fight a lot of these claims and that is his right - hence his 'self-insure' policy (I'm assuming this is just a large excess rather than real self insurance) ... so isn't it reasonable for him to be given the full details when requested?


  • Options
    #79
    arccosh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 624 ✭✭✭arccosh


    you're also given evidence before the trial.... how else do you think anyone has a chance to defend themselves


  • Options
    #80
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,275 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    whippet wrote: »
    this is the bit that has stuck out to me as a non-legal person.

    So just because something is 'normally' done this way means that change is a bad thing. Why is a defendant wrong in wanting to know what he is being accused of unless he engages a legal professional / insurance company.

    Surely it's not unreasonable for someone to tell someone what they are accusing them of - without the assumption of having to involve insurance / legal teams.

    It's clear that McDonagh wants to fight a lot of these claims and that is his right - hence his 'self-insure' policy (I'm assuming this is just a large excess rather than real self insurance) ... so isn't it reasonable for him to be given the full details when requested?

    who has suggested that he wouldn't be given full details when requested? the letter he published is only the initial letter.


  • Options
    #81
    whippet
    Registered Users Posts: 7,673 ✭✭✭whippet


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    who has suggested that he wouldn't be given full details when requested? the letter he published is only the initial letter.


    that is what I read in to this comment from Peregrinus
    McDonagh wants all the evidence laid out; that normally doesn't happen until the trial, and its avoided entirely in the large majority of cases, because they settle or are withdrawn before trial.

    In essence - I took that to mean that 'normally' the defendant has not got the right to expect to get the applicants evidence before legal teams are engaged.

    In otherwords - we don't want to talk to you - just your legal team. While this might be rooted in a frustration of dealing with non-legal speaking lay people. It does not lend to the opportunity to a defendant making their own judgement call as to if it needs legal support from their side.

    McDonagh (rightly or wrongly) has been very outspoken about what he sees as bogus claims. He wants to know what the actual cause of action is before deciding if he needs to engage expensive legal representation - as regardless of the outcome of the case he will not be reimbursed for his legal costs as we all know too well


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    arccosh wrote: »
    you're also given evidence before the trial.... how else do you think anyone has a chance to defend themselves

    You're given the facts of the claim very early on but not necessary the evidence. Both sides go through the evidence gathering stage by hiring doctors/engineers etc and seeking copies of CCTV and medical records, if necessary.

    Each side only exchange their evidence quite late in the day. There was a move towards Court appointed experts recently enough to save on the duplication costs, no idea where it's currently at.

    As an aside, I have to say I'm impressed that so many people have bought up fully the spiel put forward by Insurance companies in the last decade, that a huge % of claims are dodgy, almost to a point where taking a case is the "wrong" thing to do. I guess if advertising didn't work it wouldn't be so prevalent...


  • Options
    #83
    whippet
    Registered Users Posts: 7,673 ✭✭✭whippet


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    As an aside, I have to say I'm impressed that so many people have bought up fully the spiel put forward by Insurance companies in the last decade, that a huge % of claims are dodgy, almost to a point where taking a case is the "wrong" thing to do. I guess if advertising didn't work it wouldn't be so prevalent...

    Actually .... what ‘people’ are concerned with and are invested in is the fact that the costs of insurance in Ireland is massively expensive and is a massive burden on most businesses ... to the extent that some have to close and it is the consumer who ends up picking up the tab for the costs.

    We all can read court reports of massive claims for what appear to be minor injuries or cases where it’s hard to believe that the business had any or very little fault in the case.

    So .. yes it is acceptable that as stakeholders in society and the economy that we can question the ‘normal’ practices of how these cases are initiated, pursued and dealt with. And it’s not acceptable for anyone in the legal profession to dismiss valid questions with a condescending tone as we are not part of the profession who deal with these cases.

    As you are aware the same people questioning the legal profession are also questioning the insurance companies.


  • Options
    #84
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    whippet wrote: »
    Actually .... what ‘people’ are concerned with and are invested in is the fact that the costs of insurance in Ireland is massively expensive and is a massive burden on most businesses ... to the extent that some have to close and it is the consumer who ends up picking up the tab for the costs.

    We all can read court reports of massive claims for what appear to be minor injuries or cases where it’s hard to believe that the business had any or very little fault in the case.

    So .. yes it is acceptable that as stakeholders in society and the economy that we can question the ‘normal’ practices of how these cases are initiated, pursued and dealt with. And it’s not acceptable for anyone in the legal profession to dismiss valid questions with a condescending tone as we are not part of the profession who deal with these cases.

    As you are aware the same people questioning the legal profession are also questioning the insurance companies.

    And are the Insurance companies answering? Certainly didn't mean to be condescending, it's just I find it interesting that people will take the views of a multi-millionaire restauranteur and a massively profitable insurance industry as gospel, tbh, but then again, both have run high profile media campaigns about how it's the mean little guys taking claims against them that has them broke etc.


  • Options
    #85
    whippet
    Registered Users Posts: 7,673 ✭✭✭whippet


    Deleted User wrote: »
    And are the Insurance companies answering? Certainly didn't mean to be condescending, it's just I find it interesting that people will take the views of a multi-millionaire restauranteur and a massively profitable insurance industry as gospel, tbh, but then again, both have run high profile media campaigns about how it's the mean little guys taking claims against them that has them broke etc.

    this thread is about the interactions of the legal profession - it's whataboutary to ask here what the insurance industry's role is.

    I'm not taking anyone's word as gospel - I am simply asking if it is necessary for legal teams to be engaged from the outset - and so far the best answer I've gotten is that it is 'normal' for this to happen.


  • Options
    #86
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,758 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    whippet wrote: »
    I'm not taking anyone's word as gospel - I am simply asking if it is necessary for legal teams to be engaged from the outset - and so far the best answer I've gotten is that it is 'normal' for this to happen.

    It's not necessary for the legal teams to be engaged from the outset. The plaintiff doesn't need a legal team to go to PIAB. It's perfectly acceptable for an injured party not to consult a solicitor and to fill in the PIAB application form themselves.

    If it's a minor injury or if liability is not in question, the claims adjustor for the insurance company (or the self-insured party) can make a call as to whether or not to involve their legal team. They can decide to let PIAB assess the claim and they can then decide to accept whatever PIAB award for the injury. So, in some cases, there's no need for a legal team to be involved on the defence side. There is very much an need for them in others.

    My view is (and I help defend personal injury claims for my employer) is that if someone is injured, they'd be foolish not to engage a solicitor from the outset.

    So, to answer your question, it's not necessary to involve legal teams in every single claim but it does normally benefit the injured party.


  • Options
    #87
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,226 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Deleted User wrote: »
    As an aside, I have to say I'm impressed that so many people have bought up fully the spiel put forward by Insurance companies in the last decade, that a huge % of claims are dodgy, almost to a point where taking a case is the "wrong" thing to do. I guess if advertising didn't work it wouldn't be so prevalent...

    Ah come on, there can only be one explanation why my car insurance is three times the cost of my motorbike insurance. You can only carry one passenger on a motorbike, and you'd have to be pretty mad to stage a motorbike accident. But there is easy money to be made from staging car accidents and it carries very little legal risk.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #88
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,226 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    i'm sure it is. It is also possible that he might intimidate you into accepting a lowball offer. why take the risk?

    So what? You can (and probably should) always send any such correspondence to your solicitor and/or insurer.

    Jeez people are making it sound like he's turning up on people's doorsteps with a bunch of heavies, or something.
    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    private motorists would never get such a letter. their insurance company would get any letters regarding claims directly.

    Only time I ever had to make a PI claim was for a motor accident 100% the fault of the other party. At the start of the process my solicitor instructed me to write a personal letter to the other driver putting her on notice that I would be claiming. I presume she forwarded this to her insurer. They made me a settlement offer which I accepted.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #89
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,312 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Just for clarity, will this solicitors letter be the first that a defendant hears of the matter? Surely there should be a 'my client informs me he injured himself when he fell down the wobbly stairs in your building on 1 April 2021 at noon' letter first?
    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Ah come on, there can only be one explanation why my car insurance is three times the cost of my motorbike insurance. You can only carry one passenger on a motorbike, and you'd have to be pretty mad to stage a motorbike accident. But there is easy money to be made from staging car accidents and it carries very little legal risk.
    In fairness, it is relatively rare for anyone to be seriously injured or killed in a collision involving a motorcycle, other than motorcyclists.


  • Options
    #90
    0lddog
    Registered Users Posts: 3,292 ✭✭✭0lddog


    Victor wrote: »
    ...In fairness, it is relatively rare for anyone to be seriously injured or killed in a collision involving a motorcycle, other than motorcyclists.
    ... terrible record attached to pillion riders :(


    ( have to admit I cant see what this has to do with the thread topic )


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    ratracer
    Registered Users Posts: 3,225 ✭✭✭ratracer


    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/judge-throws-out-240000-claim-of-fourwho-went-to-solicitor-before-their-doctors-40359446.html

    Reading this bullsh1t claim in the paper reminded me of this thread, and why Pat McDonagh is 100% correct in challenging ambulance chasing solicitors! I'm surprised, but glad to see, that judges are finally seeing sense and facts in these type of case.

    Would this solicitor be held to account to the bar or anyone else for deliberately trying to mislead the case, or the doctor, who had previously worked for the firm?


Advertisement