More stories of troubled lawyers - are we doing enough? Thoughts please?

This is an unusual blog – for me. I am not ranting about injustice but sharing a growing concern and canvassing opinion. Over the last few months I have become increasingly disturbed by the numbers of lawyers – particularly young lawyers, who get themselves into terrible difficulties when things go wrong.

I posted a blog about this a few weeks ago, which had one of my biggest ever responses –

http://thestevecornforthblog.blogspot.com/2018/03/another-career-lost-seeing-wood-for.html

There seems to be no end to these distressing stories.

This week we have read about the voluntary striking off of a young solicitor who backdated 23 letters to ‘giver herself breathing space’ –

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/junior-solicitor-backdated-23-letters-to-give-herself-breathing-space/5066611.article

Today there is the story of another young lawyer who has been suspended from practice after fabricating a letter which was given to an SRA investigator –

https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/solicitor-who-fabricated-letter-in-panic-avoids-strike-off

How many times do we have to say it? The short-term discomfort of admitting a mistake, vastly outweighs the horrors of disciplinary action which inevitably follow efforts to cover things up. Do our young lawyers really have no one that they can talk to? The answer to that is – of course they do. Most caring firms will have an open-door policy, which is why these incidents are rare. But they can still be devastating for the lawyer and the firm. And there are clearly a minority of cases where the lawyer does not feel able to speak to a manager.

With all of this in mind I have been thinking about offering a facility, via my consultancy, to enable lawyers – of whatever level – to have a confidential discussion if they find themselves floundering for whatever reason. This will be at no cost to the lawyer. So three questions come from this –

1.      Would something like this serve a purpose? I am aware of the fantastic work done by Law Care - https://www.lawcare.org.uk/ . They certainly offer the best service for those lawyers who need care and support. The Law Society also have an excellent pastoral care helpline -  020 7320 5795. What I have in mind is a much more low-key affair – a confidential sounding board for lawyers who are facing an immediate problem and do not feel that they have anyone to turn to. This might involve anything from a simple word of wisdom to a signposting to someone like Law Care if needed, 

2.      Would there be scope for a wider network of senior and experience lawyers to form a wider group? 

3.      Is there enough support out there anyway?

Answers on a postcard

Concerning emails, getting a life and watching Love Island

This blog post from Mondipa Foudza in the Law Society Gazette has started me thinking about how my own management of emails has changed over the years.

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/commentary-and-opinion/701pm-dont-email-unless-its-urgent/5066512.article

I am old enough to remember the days when you sent a letter and then waited several days for a reply – unless you had an ultra-high tech opponent who owned a fax machine. Then we began to send and receive emails via our PCs in the late 1990s. This made things a bit more immediate, but you still had to go and switch on your computer.

Then the smart-phone changed the world. Suddenly, our emails began to follow us everywhere we went. My wife once caught me sitting up in bed reading them on holiday in Mexico. I blamed jet lag and the time difference. But in truth they were there, I was awake, and the rest just happened! On a more serious note I once received an aggressive email from a complaining client at 1155 on Christmas Eve – why did I read it? Because my phone was telling me it was there, and I couldn’t resist. 

These incidents caused me to introduce some strict rules which I have found very useful over the years –

1.      I initially started to disable my work emails when I went on holiday. Now, I understand why it is useful to reduce the number of emails crying out for attention when I get back to work. But on balance, getting a life won the day. I made sure that someone had my mobile phone number, so I could be contacted if I became as indispensable as I thought I was. This worked up to a point, but I still found myself with my nose in my phone while watching The Bridge on a Saturday night.

2.      In time, the penny dropped – the world did not cease to orbit the sun if I did not check them all the time. So I really did take the plunge. I firstly disabled notifications altogether. Then I regressed a full decade and removed my account from my phone. Guess what? I’m still alive, the sun is shining, and Trump would have been elected whether I had my emails on or not.

3.      I have never gone back. I check my emails once or twice when I am at home and never on holiday. But I am now in control.

4.      Much of that energy now goes into twitter!!

There is a real benefit in cutting yourself free from your emails. It creates time for you to relax, to read a book, watch the World Cup or even Love Island if you really must. It also creates space for a more considered reply. If you receive a scary email while you are eating out or travelling, there is a real temptation to fire back a reply immediately. How often has someone pressed the send button and then regretted it. Recalling an email does not erase it! If you create time to read emails you will also create time to reply. You might even ask yourself whether a reply can wait for a day or so.

This might not work for everyone. But if your time is ruled by your mail box you need to change things. Now.

A dishonest claim - and the damage it causes

A recent case has reminded us again of the dangers of exaggerated compensation claims. This time it is a clinical negligence case, but the same issues could arise in any claim involving the alleged consequences of an injury. The facts are summarised in a report in yesterdays’ Litigation Futures –

https://www.litigationfutures.com/news/jail-for-man-who-grossly-exaggerated-impact-of-negligent-treatment-in-nhs-first

Mr Atwal alleged that he was significantly disabled and claimed damages just over £800k. It was not disputed that his treatment had fallen below an acceptable standard and that he had suffered some injury as a result. The Trust had offered £30k. He could have had a reasonable claim and secured a fair settlement. As it was he grossly exaggerated the effects of the negligence. He has ended up with a 3 month prison sentence, a £75k adverse costs liability and no damages.

NHS Resolution have published the video footage which led to his downfall –

https://vimeo.com/272947704

Cases like this are so frustrating for those who seek justice for victims of medical negligence and accidents. Over the last few years there have been relentless attacks by the media and politicians against the so called ‘compensation culture’. The vast majority of claimants are genuine victims who are simply seeking some acknowledgment that they have been wronged. For many, the compensation is not their main concern. They want to know what happened and who will be held to account. Compensation plays a huge role in providing support for those who often suffer life changing injuries –

http://thestevecornforthblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/24m-damages-worth-every-penny.html

Then a case like this comes along and sends us back to the start like a sinister game of snakes and ladders. It is difficult to disagree with the CEO of NHS Resolution that there must be a clear message that ‘you cannot submit fraudulent claims’ with impunity.  They damage everybody.

There is also a real message here for lawyers who represent victims. Any claim for damages must be vigorously scrutinised.

Mr Atwal’s solicitors were, presumably, acting on a Conditional Fee Agreement. They will have suffered massive commercial damage which would bring many firms to their knees. Some might be tempted to submit a six-figure claim on the basis that liability is admitted so ‘we are bound to get more than is offered’. 

A case like this highlights that the consequences can be catastrophic. It also does untold damage to the real vicitms.