Personal Injury Solicitor

Personal Injury Solicitor is just one of many websites ethicseo host, manage and get high up in the search engines.

Currently no regulatory rules govern 'Search Engine Optimisation' (SEO) and for many years unscrupulous SEO consultants have earned highly on the premise of delivering high results in the search engines. They make no guarantees and very often don't deliver.  Personal Injury Solicitor is one of the many examples created by ethicseo that delivers a first class client service.

Ethicseo is different because it delivers every time or potential clients do not make any upfront payment to us.  Having an ethical approach to search engine optimisation is the only way of tackling your website online marketing and Personal Injury Solicitor is evidence of this.

Ethicseo in many ways is not an ordinary business but generally the most important aspect of our service to our clients is cost versus what we actually deliver.  We looked at the SEO market place and the one thing that was common to all SEO consultants was you have to pay them from day one. This is where Ethicseo is radically different as we effectively operate a payment on results basis.

Personal Injury has also been blamed for creating a "risk averse" culture where Health and Safety requirements limit activities that would otherwise be undertaken without thought.
Many individuals now feel rightly or wrongly that:-

a personal injury solicitor is less likely to tell people what they do certainly less proud of talking about getting compensation for people who undoubtedly deserved it.
 
Questions have arisen over who gains by promoting an image of a compensation culture?  Insurance companies can use it as an excuse to raise premiums.  If none of us take risks they do not make any payouts.

Clients have unrealistic expectations and some just exaggerate or lie to earn money illicitly.

Personal injury lawyers are now viewed negatively compared with other legal disciplines.  There is now a murky cloud hanging over this sector of the legal profession

Legitimate experienced Personal Injury Solicitors will not embark on frivolous claims as they will not be paid for their professional services.

There is something wrong with a system that allows someone who contributed to his/her own injuries through negligence seeking financial compensation.

Personal Injury is indefensible, it was initially introduced to widen access to the courts but to shift cost away from the legal aid fund.  A legal aid application has to satisfy an independent regulator that there is a reasonable case.  Personal Injury places that judgement with the Lawyer who takes the case.  He or she has a financial incentive in the result. The consequence is that cases which should be brought but seem of high risk are rejected and the injured party is denied any hope of recourse.  Borderline cases are not viewed positively by a Personal Injury Solicitor.  The method does not increase access but counter-intuitively it reduces it.  Many people are denied recourse and the courts are denied the opportunity of responding to individual cases and changes in society. 

Payouts may seem large, however, a million pound payout does not go a long way if you are 25, can never work again and need to pay for 24 hour care because you have been left paralysed. 

Most claims are not frivolous, but are actually genuine, however these are looked upon due to insurance companies who treat claimants with great suspicion.

Personal Injury lawyers do encourage frivolous claims

.

Personal Injury is fine if the other party is insured otherwise the victim has no recourse.

Many employers think it is fine to ignore health and safety rules, and do not really care if their employees fall off ladders, or lose a hand in an unguarded slicing machine.  Personal Injury means they can be forced to protect their workers.  It is important to remember that without Personal Injury, many people who have been seriously injured, paralysed or sustained other injuries by negligent employers would have never received any compensation.

It has now got to a point where some car insurance companies are just paying out for frivolous claims, as it is cheaper than contesting them in court. The result of this is higher premiums for those that are insured.

Even some Lawyers would be astounded at the injustice of the other side paying the uplift of fees in the event that the claimant is on a Conditional Fee Agreement - why should a defendant have to pay extra just because it happens to be sued by someone who can't afford legal fees.  This effectively means that the claimant cannot lose either way.  The law should perhaps change so that the claimant, in the event of a win, should pay the uplift of fees to his solicitor. Otherwise, where is the risk to the claimant? If you cannot afford something, surely there should be a price if you take a gamble such as a Personal Injury.

Whilst most would appreciate that greater "access to justice" is provided by the Conditional fee agreements a large amount would also agree that it encourages abuse of the system. Nobody doubts that there are wholly legitimate incidents that result in injury or worse.  In cases like these, the injured party should be entitled to claim. However, what Conditional Fee Agreements also allow is ambulance chasing and ‘stalking’ by unscrupulous firms who focus their attention on those people who they think would appreciate the cash that they could receive following their "so called incident". The compensation culture will exist as long as these firms exist.