The defendant costs specialists

Free legal advice – at a cost

By on Oct 26, 2011 | 4 comments

Bill of costs states:

“Prior to entering into the CFA, the matter was privately funded.”

So, no claim the CFA is retrospective in nature.

Quick visit to the solicitors’ website which states, under the heading “How much will making a claim cost me?”:

“Absolutely nothing, and that’s guaranteed!”

Also, in clear and unambiguous wording: “free legal service”.

And:

“If you would like to speak to one of our personal injury Solicitors for free legal advice, call us now”

And:

“Our service is totally risk and cost free, there are no catches, no fees, no deductions and no middlemen, win or lose you will not be asked to pay a penny.”

I wonder if their marketing department and costs department should speak to each other.

    4 Comments

  1. This could explain some of the bills of costs I see, the marketing department have drafted them.

    Cherwell

    1st November 2011

  2. I started noting this anomaly back in about 2004/5 and regularly put this in my Points of Dispute, going so far as to copy and paste the claims made on the website into the document, which was at odds with the claims from the Claimant Solicitor’s bill that the retainer was “privately funded”.

    I often thought that if the Advertising Standards Agency understood the issue virtually every Claimant personal injury firm in the country would be fined and told to take the claims off the website.

    Given the recent Motto judgment relating to the status of the receiving party prior to signing a CFA (ie not even a client) it makes the private retainer point even more suspect.

    I’m glad to see that I’m not mad and it wasn’t just me who thought this practice was dodgy.

    Barry Riley - Costs Lawyer

    7th November 2011

  3. In once case I took to DA, the Regional Costs Judge dismissed whatever was on the solicitors’ website as irrelevant and fluff/bumbf and wouldn’t even consider it! Because, obviously, prospective clients never look at websites (which is why the solicitors clearly also don’t spend any money to maintain and advertise on their websites) and wouldn’t expect the charges made by the solicitors to bear any relation to the claims/offers made on the website…

    Rachel Wallace

    18th November 2011

  4. Or rather bumpf…

    Rachel Wallace

    18th November 2011

Post a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *