Can the No Win No Fee Compensation Scheme really match up to the hype its supporters parade it with? Can it truly act as the legal panacea that will cure all problems in litigations many concerned British citizens are plagued by today?
In order to answer this question, we must first define what the No Win No Fee Scheme is and how it can materialize in an actual claim. To begin with, suppose we have a person, let us designate him as Mr. A, who in his misfortune not only got involved in a car crash that he did not cause, but also incurred back injuries from it. Now, in a moment of reflective vindictiveness, he decided not to shower any obloquy or contumelies on the person who was responsible for the crash, Mrs. B, and opted instead to demand an accident claim from her.
To continue, an accident claim is a formal demand addressed to the defendant (in this case Mrs. B) asking for monetary compensation for the injuries sustained by the prosecutor. If the defendant agrees to the accident claim and thinks it is valid, then he or she can pay the prosecutor and the matter is settled. If, however, she thinks the demand is unwarranted or unjust, then she can rebut the claim and the case is taken to the court, in which case a legal dispute commences and ends only when the court pens a decision.
The first thing we need to point out in the hypothetical situation above is that cases can and do get resolved even without the No Win No Fee Scheme. That is because it is not a necessity, but only a possibility. Under this scheme, the personal injury lawyer of the claimant can offer his or her legal services for free by not requiring the claimant to pay his or her hourly fees whether the case wins or gets dismissed. This is because in case the claim wins, the opposing side will provide his or her hourly fees as part of the monetary compensation they will be forced to supply to the claimant. In case the claim gets dismissed, however, the personal injury lawyer will not ask to be paid anything at all (no win, no fee).
To be sure, this quaint offer appears to be a wholly positive development. However, it does have several disadvantages alongside its advantages. First, since much more is at stake under this scheme—the solicitor’s reputation, hourly fees payment, and energy— it is quite difficult to find lawyers who will accept cases on this basis unless they are unusually airtight. Second, if a claim does get accepted on this basis but loses, then the claimant will have to pay the expenses of the defendant through what is called an After-the-Event insurance, something his or her personal injury lawyer will help him or her prepare as the case begins.
On the other hand, there are also two advantages of the No Win No Fee Scheme. First, if the case gets accepted, then the claimant can rest assured that, from the eyes of an experienced lawyer, his or her case does have strong merits. Finally, in case the claim is honored, not only will the claimant receive compensation, but he or she will also forbear having to pay the personal injury lawyer’s hourly fees.
Thus, it’s not a marketing ploy—just as much as it’s not a legal cure-all. The most that can be said about it is that it is a real option, which like all genuinely real options, are accompanied by its personal advantages and disadvantages.
In order to answer this question, we must first define what the No Win No Fee Scheme is and how it can materialize in an actual claim. To begin with, suppose we have a person, let us designate him as Mr. A, who in his misfortune not only got involved in a car crash that he did not cause, but also incurred back injuries from it. Now, in a moment of reflective vindictiveness, he decided not to shower any obloquy or contumelies on the person who was responsible for the crash, Mrs. B, and opted instead to demand an accident claim from her.
To continue, an accident claim is a formal demand addressed to the defendant (in this case Mrs. B) asking for monetary compensation for the injuries sustained by the prosecutor. If the defendant agrees to the accident claim and thinks it is valid, then he or she can pay the prosecutor and the matter is settled. If, however, she thinks the demand is unwarranted or unjust, then she can rebut the claim and the case is taken to the court, in which case a legal dispute commences and ends only when the court pens a decision.
The first thing we need to point out in the hypothetical situation above is that cases can and do get resolved even without the No Win No Fee Scheme. That is because it is not a necessity, but only a possibility. Under this scheme, the personal injury lawyer of the claimant can offer his or her legal services for free by not requiring the claimant to pay his or her hourly fees whether the case wins or gets dismissed. This is because in case the claim wins, the opposing side will provide his or her hourly fees as part of the monetary compensation they will be forced to supply to the claimant. In case the claim gets dismissed, however, the personal injury lawyer will not ask to be paid anything at all (no win, no fee).
To be sure, this quaint offer appears to be a wholly positive development. However, it does have several disadvantages alongside its advantages. First, since much more is at stake under this scheme—the solicitor’s reputation, hourly fees payment, and energy— it is quite difficult to find lawyers who will accept cases on this basis unless they are unusually airtight. Second, if a claim does get accepted on this basis but loses, then the claimant will have to pay the expenses of the defendant through what is called an After-the-Event insurance, something his or her personal injury lawyer will help him or her prepare as the case begins.
On the other hand, there are also two advantages of the No Win No Fee Scheme. First, if the case gets accepted, then the claimant can rest assured that, from the eyes of an experienced lawyer, his or her case does have strong merits. Finally, in case the claim is honored, not only will the claimant receive compensation, but he or she will also forbear having to pay the personal injury lawyer’s hourly fees.
Thus, it’s not a marketing ploy—just as much as it’s not a legal cure-all. The most that can be said about it is that it is a real option, which like all genuinely real options, are accompanied by its personal advantages and disadvantages.
