Not every course of treatment is successful – there’s nothing that can be done about it so far. Adverse outcomes may be due to an incurable disease, atypical nature of the disease, a delayed treatment course, the hidden patient’s hypersensitivity to some drugs, anomalies of development of individual organs and systems, and etc.

In such cases, the assessment of adverse impact of treatment causes difficulties even in qualified personnel. It is primarily explained by the specifics of medical practice, very different from other professions. Firstly, for other professions (driver, builder, and etc.) each death associated with their activities is always unnatural and likely to be caused as a result of some ‘illegal’ actions. The lethal outcome in the treatment process (incurable disease) often depends on the actions of medical workers, but in the presence of certain objective conditions it is not considered to be unnatural and/or unlawful. Secondly, the activities of workers in other occupations are usually regulated by certain rules and regulations (for example, road traffic rules, safety regulations in the production of construction work, etc.). In lethal cases where a person gets hit by a car, or at the construction site, the rules that have been violated, as well who stands behind them, can be figured out.

In assessing the effects of the medical actions, the situation is much more complicated. Although medical activities are regulated by numerous official rules, these documents do not provide coverage of all the diversity of medical services, especially in relation to the characteristics of the individual course of the disease in each patient. In this connection, the diagnosis and treatment of most diseases doesn’t include any official rules or instructions. Hence, the main and often the only criterion for assessing the medical staff is only certain provisions of medical science and medical practice. This way or the other, according to, a prominent startup running the largest database of medical negligence solicitors, the amount of preliminary classifications of reasonability of claims is confirmed in 39 – 58% of cases in the UK.

It should be understood that in medical practice along with the newest methods of diagnosis and treatment relatively old and well proven, but not committed, treatment options still exist. However, with a large experience of the doctor, they are very effective. In addition, in medicine legalised a variety of methods of diagnosis and treatment of the same disease. The legitimacy of such distinctions not only follows from the results of scientific research, but is also supported by the daily medical practice. Furthermore, the practical activity of other professions usually deals with limited tasks – finding a sufficient resolution in a particular branch of science. Thus, the serial production of any machine starts to be produced only in the presence of appropriate materials, after the development of the project, development of the technology and testing prototypes. Standardisation facilitates the production of manufacturing technology equipment, its maintenance and repair.

The situation around medicine is different. Here, the research and practice of medical care are often closely intertwined. And this situation is not accidental. It is due to the specific provision of medical care, the interests of the patient as an individual course of the disease requires a doctor’s exceptional powers of observation, individual approach in the choice of means and methods of treatment, the correct evaluation of the effectiveness of selected assets, ie substantive elements of scientific research in the treatment of each patient. In medicine a standard approach to patients is doomed to failure, because each disease passes differently in each person.

Contingent consideration may take different forms, each of which allocates a certain risk associated with the outcome of the case. The most common linear compensation scheme implies that the client agrees to pay the lawyer a fixed proportion of any monetary benefits that received as a result of the settlement of the dispute or awarded by the court. In most of these schemes lawyer typically pays the client during the trial, knowing that the funds will not be able to return if the case is lost. Therefore, this scheme can be considered remuneration as follows: a fixed cash payment plus a share of the monetary benefits to be received later. Nonlinear compensation schemes are also quite common, usually in these schemes the percentage of contingent consideration decreases with increasing the monetary benefits. In other schemes, the value of the remuneration, acquired by a lawyer depends on whether the case settled or a court decision is made; the effort of the lawyer (estimated in the number of hours spent) may also be taken into account. If the client is not inclined to take risks, he would prefer to share the risk with the lawyer and choose a contract with contingent consideration. But the client is not able to convince the lawyer that the submitted information corresponds to the real state of affairs until the documents are submitted. Therefore, the lawyer may fear that if he agrees to conduct business for contingent consideration, after an expensive collection of necessary documents the case may appear to be fruitless. In this connection, the client will hardly be able to find a lawyer who agrees to conduct business for a reasonable fee. A lawyer can set the size of remuneration, based on its assessment of the likelihood that the case would be unsound and the reward that he will ask for will be determined taking into account the risk. But for the customer, who risk losing the case is lower than average risk, the requested attorney fee is too high. The exceptions are rare, yet they are possible. Thus, making a choice in favor of partnering with an ambitious company, paving its way to the top league may be pay for itself. Forster Dean may be the right agency to team up with – being one of the largest UK no win no fee agencies, it offers quite fair and reasonable terms, and running a good number of offices across the country:

  • Birkenhead (Wirral)
  • Chorley (Lancashire)
  • Crewe (Cheshire)
  • Eccles (Greater Manchester)
  • Ellesmere Port (Cheshire)
  • Hanley (Staffordshire)
  • Harpurhey (Greater Manchester)
  • Leigh (Greater Manchester)
  • Liverpool
  • Liverpool (Bootle)
  • Liverpool (County Road, Walton)
  • Liverpool (Huyton)
  • Liverpool (Old Swan)
  • Liverpool (Tuebrook)
  • Newcastle-under-Lyme (Staffordshire)
  • Oldham (Greater Manchester)
  • Preston (Lancashire)
  • Rochdale (Greater Manchester)
  • Runcorn (Cheshire)
  • St Helens (Merseyside)
  • Stafford (Staffordshire)
  • Stockport (Cheshire)
  • Walsall (West Midlands)
  • Warrington (Cheshire)
  • Widnes (Cheshire)
  • Widnes – Conveyancing Department (Cheshire)
  • Wigan (Greater Manchester)

How can the problem of poor selection be solved? The lawyer in this case is the uninformed party, and can take advantage of the screening strategy. He will offer the customer a set of contracts with different proportions of the contingent consideration, choosing which clients will disclose information about themselves. If a ‘decent quality’ with favorable prospects for obtaining compensation, the client chooses a contract in which the share of the contingent consideration is insignificant and lawyer works primarily on the basis of an hourly fee or a fixed fee. ‘High quality’ claim encourages a business to bet on a favorable outcome. On the other hand, the clients whose cases are evaluated as ‘poor quality’ ones, agree to contingent consideration, thus recognizing that the expected value of the compensation to which they would have to leave, is small, since the probability of winning the case is relatively small.

Alternatively, you may go to Solicitors Guru, the platform gathering licensed legal services providers and pick up a lawyer that meets your requirements. Here you also can get acquanted with issues on no win no fee matter.