Give What You Can
It is a problem in demanding No Win No Fee UK claims that sometimes the attitudes, both good and bad, of the lawyer is inadvertently imbibed by his client. In exerting his authority by ordering his client to do all kinds of tasks—collecting articles of evidence, contacting witnesses, providing factual information—he is also limiting the world of his client and possibly even reshaping it for him. This is something clients should beware.
For one thing, they must learn to discriminate what attitude they should replicate. It may happen that the particular lawyer who you have hired may be too workaholic, to the point that his health is already continually compromised. If you copy his attitude and become dangerously workaholic yourself, then you may reinjure yourself and be unable to proceed with your suit. The eminent reason, in other words, is practical. You need to think very carefully because your claim may be aborted if you do not.
Thus, while it is not an issue whether you should work hard, it is nevertheless imperative for you not to work too hard. You should, in short, give what you can—and no more. In case other people may criticize your decision not to exert all your strength in processing your claim, you must remind them that the rationale of claiming is to earn money primarily to pay for medical bills. A healthy body, to be sure, more than the compensation, is the real aim.
Indolence
It is a sure sign of maturity to discriminate what attitude of your No Win No Fee UK lawyer you should adopt while claiming. Knowing that he too, despite his brilliance, is still imperfect and finite, mature claimants choose to study how he thinks and acts first before finally deciding to judge whether overall his work ethic is a fine one or not. An assumption that is useful to pronounce here is that not everything that lawyers do will always work. There may be times when they shamefully exploit their clients’ trust and credulity to cover up for their bungling mistakes.
This critical attitude should not, however, be used as an excuse to cover up for indolence. It is highly tempting to just sit back and claim that we are still studying the actions and motives of our lawyers instead of trusting him and letting him direct us on what to do. Despite the fact that not all lawyers are ethical or right, the truth is that the claimant will never see for himself unless he does what he is told to do. The consequence of his lawyer’s orders, whether it furthered his claim or not in other words, will then be his guide in estimating his character. Activity and results, to say the same thing in other words, should be our bases in judging our lawyers.
Tuesday 14 May 2013
Compensation Claims and Specifics
Precision as a Virtue
Perhaps the first adjustment that first-time claimants need to make when demanding compensation claims is to distinguish general from specific remarks. It is an understood philosophy in ordinary conversations that bare assertions can sometimes supplant solid arguments. Because of the everyday and non-serious nature of most cursory talk, we do not see the need to qualify our statements or place an army of proofs to adduce any of them. On the contrary, we are content with merely stating our opinions and expect other people to agree with us. In case they do not, then we can expect that then and only then will we find ourselves in need of arguments. The mere fact that anyone can contradict us, however, or point out any flaw in our reasoning is so uncommon that except in books, we can expect others to just weakly smile or dismiss what we said than engage us in overt confrontation.
In the courts, however, things are understandably different. Here, any written assertion made must be countersigned by a professional lawyer and if any part of it could be discovered as having been falsified, then the person who stated it could be held in contempt, even imprisoned, depending on the gravity of the lie.
When Claiming, Specify
It is not enough to launch general accusations when demanding compensation claims. Anyone could do that. More than this, you must supplement and verify your general assertions by advancing cogent proofs. Only by packing complete arguments into the courts can you expect to score a victory. Since this requirement of backing up everything you assert while making suit is understandably new to many first-time claimants, which is not their fault at all because ordinary conversations are not as critical, those who are aware of it and are able to come to hearings with airtight arguments usually win in the end.
Second, more than just attaching proofs to your assertions, you must also strive to be specific. For example, if you are demanding an accident at work claim, then you must explicitly explain exactly what injury you incurred and exactly how someone irresponsibly caused it. It is not enough that you assert that you were hurt because of someone. You must show, for example, that you broke your neck because your employer hired an incompetent driver and crashed the vehicle you were both riding. The secret, therefore, if there is any secret, in claiming compensation is to be precise, detailed, and meticulous.
Perhaps the first adjustment that first-time claimants need to make when demanding compensation claims is to distinguish general from specific remarks. It is an understood philosophy in ordinary conversations that bare assertions can sometimes supplant solid arguments. Because of the everyday and non-serious nature of most cursory talk, we do not see the need to qualify our statements or place an army of proofs to adduce any of them. On the contrary, we are content with merely stating our opinions and expect other people to agree with us. In case they do not, then we can expect that then and only then will we find ourselves in need of arguments. The mere fact that anyone can contradict us, however, or point out any flaw in our reasoning is so uncommon that except in books, we can expect others to just weakly smile or dismiss what we said than engage us in overt confrontation.
In the courts, however, things are understandably different. Here, any written assertion made must be countersigned by a professional lawyer and if any part of it could be discovered as having been falsified, then the person who stated it could be held in contempt, even imprisoned, depending on the gravity of the lie.
When Claiming, Specify
It is not enough to launch general accusations when demanding compensation claims. Anyone could do that. More than this, you must supplement and verify your general assertions by advancing cogent proofs. Only by packing complete arguments into the courts can you expect to score a victory. Since this requirement of backing up everything you assert while making suit is understandably new to many first-time claimants, which is not their fault at all because ordinary conversations are not as critical, those who are aware of it and are able to come to hearings with airtight arguments usually win in the end.
Second, more than just attaching proofs to your assertions, you must also strive to be specific. For example, if you are demanding an accident at work claim, then you must explicitly explain exactly what injury you incurred and exactly how someone irresponsibly caused it. It is not enough that you assert that you were hurt because of someone. You must show, for example, that you broke your neck because your employer hired an incompetent driver and crashed the vehicle you were both riding. The secret, therefore, if there is any secret, in claiming compensation is to be precise, detailed, and meticulous.
Too Witty for Comfort
What I learned the hard way last year was that you should not be too clever when dealing with whiplash injury claims. That is to say, even though the claiming process is based largely on logic and reasoning, you should not overextend rationalizations to their ultimate results. This is what I mean.
When my lawyer asked me, for example, why he should accept my whiplash injury claims over those of other claimants, I answered that if he did not, then he would have no income, and therefore he would then go hungry and probably die. I honestly believed that it was this kind of logic that lawyers wanted to hear. But apparently I was mistaken. The lawyer I was adverting to not only refused to take on my claims, he even gave me a long exposition on the use of politeness and decorum when transacting subjects of dignity and great import. I offered to retract what I said. I told him I did not mean it. But he wouldn’t talk to me anymore. That’s just sad because I would have added that he would probably die and be mourned in a grand funeral by his friends and family. I wonder how he would have reacted to that. Maybe he would not have gotten angry.
When I got to talk to the judge, for luckily I discovered a lawyer who did accept my claims, I also got into trouble. The judge asked me if I was demanding a claim for the first time. It made me feel horrible. I nearly thought he was acting condescendingly to me. But I simply figured that this question was probably the right way to introduce yourself in the world of law. Without hesitation then, I answered that it was. Not willing to be looked in a bad light, I returned the favor. I asked him whether this was the first time he would try a case too. But to my surprise, instead of answering a happy Yes or No, he held me in contempt and had it put on record that I was guilty of disrespecting his authority. It boggled my mind. Until now, I still don’t know why I was ejected from court that day. But I think I’ve figured out the answer. I should have asked him more respectfully, as in “How about you sir? Is this the first case you will try, your Honor?”
When my lawyer asked me, for example, why he should accept my whiplash injury claims over those of other claimants, I answered that if he did not, then he would have no income, and therefore he would then go hungry and probably die. I honestly believed that it was this kind of logic that lawyers wanted to hear. But apparently I was mistaken. The lawyer I was adverting to not only refused to take on my claims, he even gave me a long exposition on the use of politeness and decorum when transacting subjects of dignity and great import. I offered to retract what I said. I told him I did not mean it. But he wouldn’t talk to me anymore. That’s just sad because I would have added that he would probably die and be mourned in a grand funeral by his friends and family. I wonder how he would have reacted to that. Maybe he would not have gotten angry.
When I got to talk to the judge, for luckily I discovered a lawyer who did accept my claims, I also got into trouble. The judge asked me if I was demanding a claim for the first time. It made me feel horrible. I nearly thought he was acting condescendingly to me. But I simply figured that this question was probably the right way to introduce yourself in the world of law. Without hesitation then, I answered that it was. Not willing to be looked in a bad light, I returned the favor. I asked him whether this was the first time he would try a case too. But to my surprise, instead of answering a happy Yes or No, he held me in contempt and had it put on record that I was guilty of disrespecting his authority. It boggled my mind. Until now, I still don’t know why I was ejected from court that day. But I think I’ve figured out the answer. I should have asked him more respectfully, as in “How about you sir? Is this the first case you will try, your Honor?”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)