Every eight hours someone is told they will never walk again

It's a remarkable and dismaying statistic: every eight hours, somebody is left paralysed by a spinal cord injury and told they will never walk again.

The reality of a spinal cord injury (SCI) is all the more terrifying given the absence of adequate healthcare for those suffering. This is something that I've written about in the past, and it's something that I intend to continue to publicise. Please join me, then, in supporting Spinal Cord Injuries Day, which takes place today, Friday 17 May.

Raising awareness

Spinal Cord Injuries Day aims to raise public awareness of the grave difficulties faced by many people affected by spinal injuries. An excellent campaign is presently being managed by www.EveryEightHours.com to do just this, and I wholeheartedly embrace it.

Specifically, the campaign aims to ensure further and better medical research into more reliable treatments, to develop improved medical care and support for those affected by an SCI, and to provide guidance and support for those affected by spinal injuries so that they can lead independent lives.

My work has brought me into contact with many people with SCI. Often the diagnosis of paraplegia or tetraplegia comes after a sudden, traumatic and wholly unforeseen accident. Managing the injury takes time, money and a colossal amount of care - and has a huge impact not just on the injured person but on their family as well.

Research carried out by Loughborough University, on behalf of spinal injury support charity Aspire, reveals the harsh truth about the state of care for those affected by spinal injuries. Last year, for example, a fifth of those affected were discharged from hospital and transferred to a care home, irrespective of their age. Why? Because local housing cannot suitably accommodate the injured person's changed lifestyle and needs.

Health care is not good enough

Moreover, these care homes are often understaffed and, frankly, horrible places for those adjusting to their new lives. Loughborough University's research incorporated 20 interviews with residents from care homes across the UK, most of which suggested care workers don't have the necessary experience or know-how to look after people who have suffered such traumatic injuries.

From one interview it transpired that staff had attempted to move a person with spinal injuries using a 'slideboard', only to drop the patient on the floor. The result, adding insult to injury, was that the patient sustained a broken arm. On a separate occasion, that same person was provided the wrong medication - a potentially fatal mistake.

Indeed, as I wrote at the end of last year, my colleague Allison O'Reilly reported in the shocking truth of the story of Roger Hearn, who sustained life-changing damage to his spine in a road traffic accident while on a cricket tour in India. Mr Hearn spoke at a hearing held by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Spinal Cord Injury, and also gave an interview to ITV about his experience. He revealed that care home rules mean that his wife is prohibited from sleeping in the same bed as her husband. Her commitment to her husband's care is inspirational - Mrs Hearn sleeps on the floor next to his bed - but nevertheless Mr Hearn echoes the feelings of many with SCI when he says: "Survival is often just the name of the game."

Advances in technology are beginning to make a difference to those affected by spinal injuries, and it is to be hoped that one day science will provide real solutions. But for now, there is no quick fix. Those with SCI need help; their families need help; those working in this sector, to care for them and find solutions, need help too.

Please, therefore, share the www.EveryEightHours.com website through social media and get in touch with the spinal cord injury charities involved in the campaign.

We must do our best to make a difference.

Thalidomide victims must not be forgotten

Recently I had the pleasure of meeting up with Michael Napier, who is well-known in the legal profession as the former senior partner of Irwin Mitchell. As well as being at the helm of Irwin Mitchell for 30 years, Michael has served the profession with distinction in a number of roles, including a stint as president of The Law Society. Today he continues to play a large part in the litigation sector, not least in his new appointment as Chairman of Harbour Litigation Funding Ltd.

Michael is as well placed as anyone to comment on the huge changes that the profession is undergoing at present. Our conversation ranged around a great deal of things, including the recent advent of the Jackson reforms as law in the form of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO). And in chatting with Michael, another thorny topic was covered: the public image of personal injury lawyers.

Too often, personal injury lawyers are cast as mercenaries who are only interested in their own profit. This stereotype is trotted out by the media on a regular basis. In the same way, the media - and many politicians - would have us believe, as a society, that we are awash with spurious claims; that vast swaths of the population litigate at the drop of a hat, spurred on by avaricious lawyers.

Duty before profit

The truth is very different. My firm's motto is 'duty before profit'. We believe in our ethical and professional duty to serve our clients to the best of our ability. So, too, do the majority of personal injury lawyers. Frequently, indeed, personal injury lawyers help people to obtain redress in circumstances where corporate indifference or resistance might otherwise see them left uncompensated.

Michael reminded me of a good example of this. Thalidomide was manufactured in the 1950s and was sold from 1957 until 1962. Initially used as a sleeping pill, its use morphed into an apparent panacea for pregnant women suffering from the effects of morning sickness. Tragically, though, it caused many different forms of birth defect.

Thalidomide was withdrawn from sale in 1962 after the link between its use and deformities - including shortened limbs, blindness, brain damage, missing sexual organs and missing internal organs - was conclusively proved. But as if its victims had not suffered enough, the past 50 years have been a different kind of battleground.

As Thalidomide victim Guy Tweedy, from Harrogate, said last year: "Thalidomide was not an act of God. It was a man-made disaster. For seven months leading up to the drug being withdrawn, UK government officials had been given compelling evidence that it was responsible for a large number of babies being born with horrific birth defects ... For the last 50 years we have not only had to live with the devastating effects of Thalidomide, but we have had to fight every step of the way for compensation."

Here, personal injury lawyers have played a role. They have helped maintain pressure on the German manufacturer of the drug, Grünenthal - which only last year managed to issue a public apology to Thalidomide victims. Personal injury lawyers have assisted people in obtaining compensation for this tragedy. They've not thought of their profit but of doing their best to ameliorate the terrible misfortune suffered as a consequence of Thalidomide.

Campaigning must continue

Campaigning for Thalidomide victims must continue. Many remain alive today and they need care, consideration and decent provision for their futures. As such, I applaud the work of campaign groups such as Thalidomide UK and ShowYourHand, to which Michael, who is a trustee of The Thalidomide Trust, directed me. And looking back, by way of countering the clichés that abound about modern journalism as much as in the law, the excellent Sunday Times investigation into Thalidomide should be noted. Not only did it reveal that basic testing had not been properly carried out before the drug went on sale, it also helped increase compensation payable by the UK distributor from £3.25m to £32.5m.

Post-Leveson and the phone hacking scandal, journalism's standing is perhaps at its lowest. But rogue and corrupt journalists are the exception, not the norm. Most journalists want to report the facts of an event and serve the public.

So it is in personal injury law. The overwhelming majority of people in this sector work there because they want to help people.

Here's hoping that Thalidomide victims continue to receive all the help they need and deserve - and that the clichés are replaced by the truth.

3GS7SJSRNQ3Z

An ethical ABS is to be applauded - but there remain grave reservations about the regime

I've written previously of my reservations about the Alternative Business Structure (ABS) regime, first proposed by Sir David Clementi in 2006 and a fact of legal life for nearly a year and a half now. Because they enable insurers and claims management companies to own and invest in law firms, ABSs are the Trojan horse in the battle against referral fees. It seems that no sooner were referral fees been banned, than we have been confronted with the means to get round the ban and perpetuate the very problem the Ministry of Justice sought to curtail.

But last week, a story on the excellent Legal Futures website gave me cause for cheer. The Community and Law Service (CALS) in Leicester has become the first not-for-profit organisation to set up an ABS. CALS has been authorised by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) to launch Castle Park Solicitors Community Interest Company. Its profits will be channelled back into continuing the work of the charity.

CALS gets there first

Image by JosephGilbert.org

CALS has beaten the application by Islington Law Centre to establish a not-for-profit ABS, which was made last November. Castle Park and CALS will not be sharing office space; from its premises, Castle Park will provide legal advice on family, immigration and employment law. Its intention is summed up by Glenda Terry, head of finance and administration: "We set it up because we wanted to have the facility to provide good-quality legal advice and representation mainly in the areas going out of scope of legal aid. We have pitched our fees competitively and hope it will be attractive to those on low to medium incomes."

This is a laudable aim, and one which will help to mitigate the effects of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO), which, for me, remains one of the most poorly conceived pieces of legislation to have made it onto the statute books in recent years. Legal aid has been decimated by LASPO, so too the ability of solicitors to bring meritorious claims for impecunious clients. The emphasis is on commodification and wholesaling, rather than considering and caring for an individual's needs.

Helen Grant misses the point

It is no use hearing Justice Minister Helen Grant acknowledge that LASPO's reforms to civil justice will bring "some pain initially and uncertainty for a while." The fact is that LASPO's provisions will have a dire effect on those who need legal advice, making it commercially impossible for many solicitors to represent them.

At least, though, CALS and Castle Park have used the ABS regime to counter LASPO. Here, utilising the ABS model ensures that paid-for services are introduced alongside traditional free services. Castle Park will thus generate income for CALS, which offers free housing and debt advice. In time, it is hoped that CALS will become less reliant on government funding and grants.

The ethical underpinning of both CALS and Castle Park is welcome, not least as insurers continue to push for ABS status so that they can, in effect, become law firms themselves. The SRA has already approved the creation of Admiral Law and BDE Law, joint ventures between insurance giant Admiral and law firms Lyons Davidson and Cordner Lewis. Ageas, which jointly underwrites Tesco's car insurance policies, has set up a venture with New Law, the PI firm based in Cardiff. Direct Line has got an application for an ABS in the pipeline, and the SRA says there are 104 similar applications currently being processed.

Not only do such ABSs allow insurers to refer claims to lawyers, but conflicts of interest are surely inevitable in this changing legal landscape. It is only a matter of time before an ABS law firm represents a client who is insured by the parent insurer.  It will be interesting, when this scenario comes to pass, to see what the Justice Minister and the SRA make of it.

Fight like fighting hell itself for the living

International Workers' Memorial Day takes place this coming Sunday. I'd wager this isn't an event in many lawyers' diaries, but I'd also suggest that it should be. After all, this is an international day of remembrance and action for workers killed, disabled, injured or made unwell by their work. It makes for a focal point, an occasion to highlight the avoidable nature of so many workplace accidents. It also serves as a rallying call for campaigns to secure improvements in workplace safety. A number of satellite events occur before and after 28 April, the official date of Workers' Memorial Day (which was started by the Canadian Union of Public Employees in 1984). There is one of great public importance today, in London: the world's first-ever asbestos demonstration outside a Russian embassy.

Workers' Memorial Day Poster
Mary Harris "Mother" Jones

Why is this taking place outside the Russian Embassy?

The reason is simple.


From Russia, With Poison

In terms of land mass, Russia is the largest country in the world. Sadly, statistical evidence also shows that it is the largest producer of asbestos on the planet. According to www.asbestos.com, "In 2000, asbestos productions reached approximately 700,000 tons, much more than Canada and China. By the year 2008, mining produced more than one million tons of asbestos." That is a terrifying figure, especially given what the Western world has known for a long time about asbestos: namely, that it is a killer. Apparently, Russia's high production numbers stem from the city Asbest, where there is a seven-mile long mine with a width of one-and-a-half miles and a depth of a 1,000 feet. The city, located about 900 miles northeast of Moscow, has earned a tragic alternative name. It is also known as "the dying city", precisely because of its high rates of mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases.

No wonder, when one learns that about 500,000 tons of asbestos is gathered from the mine each year.

A Dubious League Table

Russia lies in third place in the league table that no one should be in: that for asbestos consumption. China and India have the unenviable top spots.

As asbestos.com has it, "Russia has widely used asbestos in roofing materials, automobile brakes and insulation. About 3,000 asbestos-containing products have been labelled as safe by the Chief Sanitary Officer of Russia." Moreover: "Annual asbestos-related deaths were 10,400 in 2005. With little opposition towards the use of asbestos, Russia will likely continue to use and export this toxic substance."

A recent letter to the Russian Ambassador to the UK calling for an end to trade in asbestos met with no response. But thanks to this country's evolved democratic principles - which privilege freedom of expression and the right to peaceful protest - something is being done. Those who oppose the production and export of asbestos will gather outside the Russian Embassy at 11.30am today in a demonstration which is supported by the GMB trade union, the Forum of Asbestos Victims' Support Groups UK and IBAS, as well as several other UK groups.

Time for Action

Protestors will urge Russia to leave its toxic and deadly asbestos in the ground. This is a worthy cause and I would commend anyone to take part peacefully in this demonstration.

Meanwhile, I hope not only that we continue the battle to rid the world of asbestos use but that those who otherwise haven't been aware of International Workers' Memorial Day will now put it in their diaries. After all, as Mary Harris 'Mother' Jones - the legendary American schoolteacher who became a leading figure in workers’ rights at the turn of the 20th century - advised, we should: "Pray for the dead - and fight like hell for the living."

The demonstration is on Friday April 26, 2013 for International Workers' Memorial Day and it will take place outside the Russian Embassy, 6-8 Kensington Palace Gardens, London W8 4QP at 11.30am.

The ABS Regime: who watches the watchmen?

The Alternative Business Structure (ABS) regime has been with us for a while now. First proposed by Sir David Clementi in 2006, ABSs became possible at the beginning of January last year. It was then that the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) began accepting applications for ABS status.

A year later, the SRA announced that 454 firms had applied for ABS status. In a press release dated 11 January, it stated that "some 117 firms have completed the submission of all necessary information and 74 licences have been granted ... a further 19 [are] close to completion."

ABSs on the rise

No doubt the numbers have increased over the past few months. No doubt, too, that this will please the government. It has long trumpeted ABSs as a force for good and a means of driving "greater efficiency", especially in criminal legal aid. Speaking about this sector, the Lord Chancellor, Chris Grayling, recently declared, as reported by Legal Futures, that "we are proposing a model of competitive tendering, where solicitors’ firms must compete to offer the best price they can for work in their local area. This will mean successful firms expanding or joining together, to achieve economies of scale which can be passed onto the taxpayer in savings to the public purse."

Consolidation is the name of the game

Consolidation, motivated by the desire to save £220m from the legal aid budget, is the name of the game, as heralded by Jack Straw in a speech in March 2009. Inevitably this will change the legal landscape as we know it - though I will add that the advent of so-called 'Tesco law' is far from universally applauded - I continue to have a major concern about ABSs and their impact on the personal injury arena. In a nutshell: they could serve as a way round the Ministry of Justice's ban on referral fees.

As I've said before, ABSs are Trojan horses in the battle against referral fees. They enable insurers and claims management companies to own and invest in law firms, thereby circumventing the laudable effort to rid us of referral fees and what the government condemns as 'compensation culture' (though this is, as none other than the Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson, recently observed, a perceived compensation culture, not an actual one). When insurers and claims management companies can own and invest in law firms, they can handle PI claims from start to finish. They will therefore control the whole process. The raft of ancillary fees paid by those outside the legal profession, the likes of garages, reporting engineers, towing companies and trade unions, can just continue in another guise.

Moreover, I have recently encountered conduct that shows just how ethically suspect some insurers can be – and how their own behaviour is what fuels our 'compensation culture'.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Recently a colleague of mine was involved in a road traffic accident. The other driver opened their car door into the side of her as she drove past.  Doing so made quite a mess of the front wing of the car and my colleague was understandably shaken up.

The other driver's insurer made contact with my colleague within 24 hours. Remarkably, despite her not even mentioning any injury whatsoever, the insurer made her a pre-medical offer of £2,000. My colleague did not provide any response to the offer as she was more interested in ensuring that she had use of another vehicle.  The next day the insurer called to increase the offer to £2,400, and also make an offer for her son of £1,500.

My colleague was unlikely to have made a claim at all. And yet she finds herself offered nearly £4,000 in PI compensation.

Who, then, is really fuelling the so-called 'compensation culture'? Surely it couldn't be the insurance industry? Could it?

(For those who don't know their Latin, I'm no expert either. But 'Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?' means 'Who watches the watchmen?' It seems appropriate here.)