The Truths and Myths About No Win No Fee Compensation Claims
Compensation claims are quite common in the UK.
For most legal matters involving personal injury, it is the de facto standard practice and is beginning to become more popular for other types of civil lawsuits as well.
However, as the popularity of this practice increases, the misinformation about no win no fee compensation cases also grows.
Myth one -- no win no fee increases false claims The standard position of many is that because the client is out nothing and the lawyer is still compensated by an insurance policy should the case be lost, that there is nothing to lose in filing a lawsuit that has no merit.
The truth of the matter, however, is very different.
Since no win/fee claims have become the standard way of dealing with injury lawsuits; the number of compensation claims has actually dropped.
The insurance that each party carries in a no win no fee agreement scrutinises the case and if a lawyer takes case after case that has no merit, their ability to secure insurance for future no win/fee cases is severely hampered.
On top of this, no win no fee cases are more likely to be settled out of court because both parties legal council will gravitate toward settlement over lengthy court battles, where the insurance has to pay out more money for one side or the other in legal fees.
Myth two - no win no fee lawyers will take a disproportionate amount of your settlement This myth stems from a simple misunderstanding of how the no win/fee setup works.
In a contingency agreement, the solicitor will take an agreed upon amount of the settlement, should there be one, as compensation for their time and effort with your claim.
Typical these compensation claims are a different thing all together.
When a person enters into a no win/fee agreement a conditional fee arrangement is entered into.
In this, an insurance policy is secured by the lawyer to protect their client and ensure that they receive compensation, regardless of the outcome of the case.
Should they win, the losing side pays the attorney fees for the winning side, possibly from an insurance policy of their own.
Should they lose, the insurance pays both the losing side's lawyer as well as the winning side's legal fees.
Myth three - no win no fee makes people scared to go to court The myth itself stems from people being afraid that others will take them to court or will find some minute reason to counter-sue should they go to court.
It also stems from the fact that courts will typically have the losing party pay the winning party's court cost.
However, as shown in the previous two myths, the insurance policy secured as part of the conditional fee agreement actually insulates both parties from legal fees.
The no win no fee setup was put into place to encourage a person to go to court with a legitimate claim and protect them from retaliatory legal tactics.
For most legal matters involving personal injury, it is the de facto standard practice and is beginning to become more popular for other types of civil lawsuits as well.
However, as the popularity of this practice increases, the misinformation about no win no fee compensation cases also grows.
Myth one -- no win no fee increases false claims The standard position of many is that because the client is out nothing and the lawyer is still compensated by an insurance policy should the case be lost, that there is nothing to lose in filing a lawsuit that has no merit.
The truth of the matter, however, is very different.
Since no win/fee claims have become the standard way of dealing with injury lawsuits; the number of compensation claims has actually dropped.
The insurance that each party carries in a no win no fee agreement scrutinises the case and if a lawyer takes case after case that has no merit, their ability to secure insurance for future no win/fee cases is severely hampered.
On top of this, no win no fee cases are more likely to be settled out of court because both parties legal council will gravitate toward settlement over lengthy court battles, where the insurance has to pay out more money for one side or the other in legal fees.
Myth two - no win no fee lawyers will take a disproportionate amount of your settlement This myth stems from a simple misunderstanding of how the no win/fee setup works.
In a contingency agreement, the solicitor will take an agreed upon amount of the settlement, should there be one, as compensation for their time and effort with your claim.
Typical these compensation claims are a different thing all together.
When a person enters into a no win/fee agreement a conditional fee arrangement is entered into.
In this, an insurance policy is secured by the lawyer to protect their client and ensure that they receive compensation, regardless of the outcome of the case.
Should they win, the losing side pays the attorney fees for the winning side, possibly from an insurance policy of their own.
Should they lose, the insurance pays both the losing side's lawyer as well as the winning side's legal fees.
Myth three - no win no fee makes people scared to go to court The myth itself stems from people being afraid that others will take them to court or will find some minute reason to counter-sue should they go to court.
It also stems from the fact that courts will typically have the losing party pay the winning party's court cost.
However, as shown in the previous two myths, the insurance policy secured as part of the conditional fee agreement actually insulates both parties from legal fees.
The no win no fee setup was put into place to encourage a person to go to court with a legitimate claim and protect them from retaliatory legal tactics.
