NHS England prepares to ban PI firms from advertising in hospitals

The Department of Health is putting into place measures to ban personal injury firms from advertising in hospitals in England.

Health secretary Jeremy Hunt confirmed over the weekend that his department will consult on changes to the NHS Standard Contract.

These changes will mean NHS trusts can no longer enter agreements under which law firms promote their services through marketing materials in accident and emergency units.

The issue has long caused controversy with critics saying it encourages firms touting for business to target vulnerable people with aggressive marketing techniques. Lawyers have argued they are simply looking for business where there are most likely to be people who have been injured through someone’s else negligence.

Simon Stevens, chief executive of NHS England, said the health service wants ‘lawyers out of hospital and doctors out of court’.

Hunt added: ‘I’m increasingly concerned that the presence of personal injury law firms in the NHS — some of whom are pursuing extremely aggressive and opportunistic tactics to win new business — is distracting for staff, and intrusive for patients and families.

‘Allowing these firms to advertise or base themselves in our hospitals goes against the spirit of what the NHS is all about. That’s why I’ve asked NHS England to take action to stop it.’

NHS England says it has received letters of complaint from patients and MPs on marketing tactics from lawyers in hospital, some reporting they have felt ‘intimidated’ by the presence of firms.

The ban could be brought into force later this year under proposals in NHS England’s 75-page five-year plan published on Friday.

That document outlines plans for the new practice called ‘Getting it Right First Time’, designed to drive improvement in 30 clinical areas. The idea of this proposal is to reduce complications and litigation to save £400m in 2017/18.

The NHS Litigation Authority, which changes its name to NHS Resolution this month, has been placed at the forefront of plans to address issues at the outset, with the revised body vowing to be more involved in incidents at an earlier stage.

NHS trusts have been asked to report all maternity incidents that are likely to result in severe brain injury in order to increase support for patients.

Helen Vernon, chief executive of NHS Resolution, said her organisation’s role is now extended beyond the remit of claims management.

‘In those rare cases which involve brain damage at birth, we will work with the family, healthcare staff and the trust, right from the start to ensure that we learn from what went wrong and share this rapidly across the NHS,’ said Vernon.

‘Increased support to the NHS in delivering candour in practice and in sharing learning for improvement will be coupled with a fresh approach to resolution which reduces the need for costly and stressful court proceedings.’

Let's block ads! (Why?)

NHS England prepares to ban PI firms from advertising in hospitals

NHS England prepares ban on PI firms advertising in hospitals

The Department of Health is putting into place measures to ban personal injury firms advertising in hospitals in England.

Health secretary Jeremy Hunt confirmed over the weekend that his department will consult on changes to the NHS Standard Contract.

These changes will mean NHS trusts can no longer enter agreements under which law firms promote their services through marketing materials in accident and emergency units.

The issue has long caused controversy with critics saying it encourages firms touting for business to target vulnerable people with aggressive marketing techniques. Lawyers have argued they are simply looking for business where there are most likely to be people who have been injured through someone’s else negligence.

Simon Stevens, chief executive of NHS England, said the health service wants ‘lawyers out of hospital and doctors out of court’.

Hunt added: ‘I’m increasingly concerned that the presence of personal injury law firms in the NHS — some of whom are pursuing extremely aggressive and opportunistic tactics to win new business — is distracting for staff, and intrusive for patients and families.

‘Allowing these firms to advertise or base themselves in our hospitals goes against the spirit of what the NHS is all about. That’s why I’ve asked NHS England to take action to stop it.’

NHS England says it has received letters of complaint from patients and MPs on marketing tactics from lawyers in hospital, some reporting they have felt ‘intimidated’ by the presence of firms.

The ban could be brought into force later this year under proposals in NHS England’s 75-page five-year plan published on Friday.

That document outlines plans for the new practice called ‘Getting it Right First Time’, designed to drive improvement in 30 clinical areas. The idea of this proposal is to reduce complications and litigation to save £400m in 2017/18.

The NHS Litigation Authority, which changes its name to NHS Resolution this month, has been placed at the forefront of plans to address issues at the outset, with the revised body vowing to be more involved in incidents at an earlier stage.

NHS trusts have been asked to report all maternity incidents that are likely to result in severe brain injury in order to increase support for patients.

Helen Vernon, chief executive of NHS Resolution, said her organisation’s role is now extended beyond the remit of claims management.

‘In those rare cases which involve brain damage at birth, we will work with the family, healthcare staff and the trust, right from the start to ensure that we learn from what went wrong and share this rapidly across the NHS,’ said Vernon.

‘Increased support to the NHS in delivering candour in practice and in sharing learning for improvement will be coupled with a fresh approach to resolution which reduces the need for costly and stressful court proceedings.’

Let's block ads! (Why?)

NHS England prepares ban on PI firms advertising in hospitals

Ukraine judged to have inadequate defence in $3bn Russian debt claim

A dispute between Russia and Ukraine over an unpaid debt of $3 billion (£2.39bn) should not go to full trial, the High Court has ruled in a widely 

In a judgment handed down last week the court rejected a bid by Ukraine for the dispute to go to full trial, saying Ukraine did not have valid justiciable defence for why it had not paid back the money.

The case focuses on $3 billion Moscow lent Kiev in December 2013 during the presidency of Viktor Yanukovich.The financial aid came in the form of a eurobond governed by English law.

Ruling that the case should not go to full Mr Justice William Blair said: ‘Ultimately this is a claim for repayment of debt instruments to which the court has held there is no justiciable defence. It would not be right to order the case to go forward to a full trial in such circumstances.’

Russia sued Ukraine for non-payment in February last year and Ukraine attempted to resist the claim. Its defences included a claim that non-payment was a countermeasure against Russian interference with Ukraine’s sovereignty.

David Goldberg, partner at City law firm White & Case, and who divides his time between London and Moscow, told the Gazette that the case was an important test of English courts as a forum for international disputes.

’The English courts are there to apply the law rather than to be drawn into political debate,’ Goldberg said. ‘If you apply the law then the result is hardly surprising - there is a simple debt that is enforceable in law.’

In a statement, the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation said: ‘After numerous attempts to settle this dispute out of court, in February 2016 Russia instructed The Law Debenture Trust Corporation, acting as the Trustee under the eurobonds, to commence proceedings against Ukraine in the English High Court.’

‘The court held that Ukraine had no basis to resist the claim, which sought payment of Ukraine’s obligations under a debt instrument that the court found to be valid.’

Ukraine is understood to be appealing the ruling.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Ukraine judged to have inadequate defence in $3bn Russian debt claim

News focus: Loose circuit in judicial drive

Last month the Judicial Appointments Commission opened a selection exercise for 116.5 circuit judges, reflecting an ‘unprecedented number of vacancies’ on the circuit bench. But how successful the commission will be in filling those slots remains to be seen, amid evidence that the judiciary has a recruitment crisis on its hands.

 Over the past few weeks, the House of Lords constitution committee has been hearing evidence on what deters practitioners from applying to the bench. And when it comes to solicitors, one reason stands out – lack of support from their law firm colleagues.

Lord Neuberger, president of the Supreme Court, told the committee: ‘Many solicitors tell me from direct experience that if their partners discover they have applied to become a part-time judge, that doesn’t always lead them to be frozen out, but it can lead them to be effectively reduced in importance in the firm because of the way solicitors work.’

Neuberger indicated that this is a big issue among City firms. ‘While they say they are happy for their partners to become part-time judges, the actuality is slightly different from what they say. It is something which should be addressed, because there are an awful lot of first-class solicitors out there who would make first-class judges, and I think their working environment and position in the firm make it difficult for them to apply.’

As Lady Hale, deputy president of the Supreme Court, pointed out to the committee, ‘it’s the difference between practising in partnership and practising as sole practitioners’.

She added: ‘If a barrister as a sole practitioner takes time away from his practice to do some part-time judging, no one else in chambers loses money. Whereas if a partner in a big firm of solicitors takes time away from his practice to do some part-time judging, his partners may very well lose some money. It’s a fact of life.

‘One has to think of ways in which that could be got round. I have no solution.’

Latest figures from the Judicial Appointments Commission also show that the proportion of solicitor candidates decreases significantly through the process from application to recommendation, in both the district judge (magistrates’ court) and deputy High Court judge exercises.

While 43% of applicants in the district judge (magistrates’ court) exercise were solicitors, they accounted for only 24% of recommendations. Just over a third of applicants going to deputy High Court judge posts were solicitors, but they accounted for only 5% of recommendations.

In the ‘small court exercises’, solicitors represented 23% of applicants and 13% of recommendations for immediate appointment. For the ‘small tribunal exercises’, solicitors accounted for 22% of applicants, but only 10% of recommendations.

Neuberger and Hale are not the only ones to point out the lack of support solicitors have received from law firms.

Last month Judicial Appointments Commission vice-chair Lord Justice Burnett told the committee: ‘The reality is that those applying, particularly for part-time appointments, are likely to do so in their forties, which is the time when most professionals are at the height of their earnings power. Thus it’s not necessarily welcome to the partners of a big law practice to see someone devoting time elsewhere and seeing his or her ambitions are moving in a different direction.’

Amid the gloom, one solicitor’s progress is a much-needed bright spot.

Briony Clarke, a partner at Essex and Suffolk firm Taylor Haldane Barlex, became the youngest female judge in the country last month, when the 31-year-old was sworn in as a deputy district judge (magistrates’ court) at Chelmsford Crown Court.

Her appointment generated positive coverage across mainstream media.

What was particularly striking about Clarke’s story was the pride felt by her firm, evident in a statement posted on Taylor Haldane Barlex’s website.

The firm said: ‘This is a prestigious appointment that reflects her ability as a criminal advocate. We believe she is the youngest female applicant to have been successful. It is without doubt an extraordinary personal achievement and the partnership are absolutely delighted for her.’

Of course, law firms are not solely to blame for the worryingly low number of solicitors applying to the bench.

Family solicitor and recorder Anna Nice told the committee that geographical issues may be deterring solicitors from pursuing a career on the circuit bench.

Nice said: ‘You’re expected to commit to a circuit. The western circuit stretches from Swindon to Penzance to the Isle of Wight… It’s possible people might not apply or defer applying if they have no prospect of being anywhere near where they live.

‘Should people be expected to move to where the courts are? Some have made heroic efforts to do that. But there are many who cannot move their entire household [because of] partners who are working, or children in school.’

She added: ‘The sort of job we’re talking about is incredibly stressful. I do not want to live away from my family in rented accommodation all week. I want to live with my family and have that support.’

Nor are firms to blame for the technical glitches that hundreds of solicitors have experienced in the latest competition for 100 recorder places.

In the latest round, the Criminal Bar Association reported that tests were being emailed to some candidates several minutes before scheduled start times, resulting in some of the allocated time being used before the test was started. There were also reports of some applicants not receiving emails.

But getting over such hurdles will be worth it in the end, right? Law Society president Robert Bourns told the committee he understands solicitors, especially senior solicitors not accustomed to dealing with rejection, can apply nearly three or four times before they are appointed. ‘Solicitors would find that difficult, to keep continuing to volunteer for that process,’ he said.

The Law Society’s Solicitor Judges Division aims to increase the number of solicitors in the higher judiciary, and encourages those with diverse experience and backgrounds to apply for judicial posts. Click here for more information.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

News focus: Loose circuit in judicial drive

Loose circuit in judicial drive

Last month the Judicial Appointments Commission opened a selection exercise for 116.5 circuit judges, reflecting an ‘unprecedented number of vacancies’ on the circuit bench. But how successful the commission will be in filling those slots remains to be seen, amid evidence that the judiciary has a recruitment crisis on its hands.

 Over the past few weeks, the House of Lords constitution committee has been hearing evidence on what deters practitioners from applying to the bench. And when it comes to solicitors, one reason stands out – lack of support from their law firm colleagues.

Lord Neuberger, president of the Supreme Court, told the committee: ‘Many solicitors tell me from direct experience that if their partners discover they have applied to become a part-time judge, that doesn’t always lead them to be frozen out, but it can lead them to be effectively reduced in importance in the firm because of the way solicitors work.’

Neuberger indicated that this is a big issue among City firms. ‘While they say they are happy for their partners to become part-time judges, the actuality is slightly different from what they say. It is something which should be addressed, because there are an awful lot of first-class solicitors out there who would make first-class judges, and I think their working environment and position in the firm make it difficult for them to apply.’

As Lady Hale, deputy president of the Supreme Court, pointed out to the committee, ‘it’s the difference between practising in partnership and practising as sole practitioners’.

She added: ‘If a barrister as a sole practitioner takes time away from his practice to do some part-time judging, no one else in chambers loses money. Whereas if a partner in a big firm of solicitors takes time away from his practice to do some part-time judging, his partners may very well lose some money. It’s a fact of life.

‘One has to think of ways in which that could be got round. I have no solution.’

Latest figures from the Judicial Appointments Commission also show that the proportion of solicitor candidates decreases significantly through the process from application to recommendation, in both the district judge (magistrates’ court) and deputy High Court judge exercises.

While 43% of applicants in the district judge (magistrates’ court) exercise were solicitors, they accounted for only 24% of recommendations. Just over a third of applicants going to deputy High Court judge posts were solicitors, but they accounted for only 5% of recommendations.

In the ‘small court exercises’, solicitors represented 23% of applicants and 13% of recommendations for immediate appointment. For the ‘small tribunal exercises’, solicitors accounted for 22% of applicants, but only 10% of recommendations.

Neuberger and Hale are not the only ones to point out the lack of support solicitors have received from law firms.

Last month Judicial Appointments Commission vice-chair Lord Justice Burnett told the committee: ‘The reality is that those applying, particularly for part-time appointments, are likely to do so in their forties, which is the time when most professionals are at the height of their earnings power. Thus it’s not necessarily welcome to the partners of a big law practice to see someone devoting time elsewhere and seeing his or her ambitions are moving in a different direction.’

Amid the gloom, one solicitor’s progress is a much-needed bright spot.

Briony Clarke, a partner at Essex and Suffolk firm Taylor Haldane Barlex, became the youngest female judge in the country last month, when the 31-year-old was sworn in as a deputy district judge (magistrates’ court) at Chelmsford Crown Court.

Her appointment generated positive coverage across mainstream media.

What was particularly striking about Clarke’s story was the pride felt by her firm, evident in a statement posted on Taylor Haldane Barlex’s website.

The firm said: ‘This is a prestigious appointment that reflects her ability as a criminal advocate. We believe she is the youngest female applicant to have been successful. It is without doubt an extraordinary personal achievement and the partnership are absolutely delighted for her.’

Of course, law firms are not solely to blame for the worryingly low number of solicitors applying to the bench.

Family solicitor and recorder Anna Nice told the committee that geographical issues may be deterring solicitors from pursuing a career on the circuit bench.

Nice said: ‘You’re expected to commit to a circuit. The western circuit stretches from Swindon to Penzance to the Isle of Wight… It’s possible people might not apply or defer applying if they have no prospect of being anywhere near where they live.

‘Should people be expected to move to where the courts are? Some have made heroic efforts to do that. But there are many who cannot move their entire household [because of] partners who are working, or children in school.’

She added: ‘The sort of job we’re talking about is incredibly stressful. I do not want to live away from my family in rented accommodation all week. I want to live with my family and have that support.’

Nor are firms to blame for the technical glitches that hundreds of solicitors have experienced in the latest competition for 100 recorder places.

In the latest round, the Criminal Bar Association reported that tests were being emailed to some candidates several minutes before scheduled start times, resulting in some of the allocated time being used before the test was started. There were also reports of some applicants not receiving emails.

But getting over such hurdles will be worth it in the end, right? Law Society president Robert Bourns told the committee he understands solicitors, especially senior solicitors not accustomed to dealing with rejection, can apply nearly three or four times before they are appointed. ‘Solicitors would find that difficult, to keep continuing to volunteer for that process,’ he said.

The Law Society’s Solicitor Judges Division aims to increase the number of solicitors in the higher judiciary, and encourages those with diverse experience and backgrounds to apply for judicial posts. Click here for more information.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Loose circuit in judicial drive

Solicitor anger over late night court pilot

The profession has vowed to hold the government to account on its plans for courts to stay open as late as 8.30pm, claiming that the additional burden of working ‘exceptionally late’ hours must be recognised.

HM Courts & Tribunals Service has announced a flexible working pilot at six courts. It said this will help it to understand how flexible hours affect court users. HMCTS will then evaluate whether this could be a sustainable way of working.

The pilots are expected to begin in May, in six courts over six months. Crown courts will be open until 6pm, civil courts until 7pm and magistrates’ courts until 8.30pm.

Zoe Gascoyne (pictured), chair of the Criminal Law Solicitors’ Association, said the news had been met with anger. According to Gascoyne, defence practitioners had been ‘noticeably absent’ from a ‘national steering group’ that HMCTS said had approved the pilot.

Gascoyne added that the plans discriminate against those with childcare concerns and that other factors, including how criminal firms make arrangements for employees to cover cases outside normal working hours, had not been considered.

‘Both sides of the profession are facing further cuts and it is inconceivable that defence practitioners will make themselves available without any consideration as to how they will be remunerated. If legal representation isn’t made available during the extended hours then this restricts access to justice,’ she said.

‘It is about time that government agencies recognised the fundamental importance of defence practitioners, without whom the system would grind to an expensive halt.’

The Law Society warned that any proposal would require robust evaluation to assess the impact, while the Bar Council claimed that extended hours would be ‘almost impossible’ for parents with childcare responsibilities.

Angela Hogan, chair of the Association of Women Solicitors (AWS), said the association would need ‘to look at these pilots to ensure our members are in a position to manage the additional burden of working such exceptionally late hours and at short notice’.

She added: ‘The AWS will look at the current proposals carefully to ensure that both the needs of defendants to have adequate representation and the rights of our members to reasonable working arrangements are met.’

The Ministry of Justice previously introduced flexible court sittings in the wake of the 2011 riots. Under that scheme, 42 magistrates’ courts had extended weekday as well as weekend sittings. Around 6,000 cases were heard during the pilot.

The six courts taking part in the new pilot are: Newcastle Crown Court; Blackfriars Crown Court; Sheffield Magistrates’ Court; Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court; Brentford County Court; and Manchester Civil Justice Centre.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Solicitor anger over late night court pilot

Six weeks to plead on PI discount rate

Lawyers and insurers have just six weeks to plead their case for how to set the discount rate applied to personal injury settlements.

The Ministry of Justice last week announced a consultation on calculating the rate, just a month after changing it from 2.5% to minus 0.75%.

Insurers, who labelled the revised figure ‘absurdly low’, will be heartened by the speed in producing a review that considers how and when the rate should be changed.

But lord chancellor Liz Truss, who is also considering handing responsibility for setting the rate to an independent body, offered comfort to claimant lawyers by saying victims should be paid damages that compensate them ‘fully’. ‘The idea is to put them in the same position that they would have been had they not been injured, to the greatest extent possible,’ she said. ‘I remain absolutely committed to the principle of full compensation.’

Stuart Henderson, managing PI partner at Irwin Mitchell, said the rate should be set ‘to ensure compensation is adequate and not to satisfy shareholders’.

Huw Evans, director general of the Association of British Insurers, said the consultation document was an important step in achieving a ‘fair, modern way’ to set the discount rate which works for claimants, consumers, businesses and taxpayers.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Six weeks to plead on PI discount rate