Irwin Mitchell Solicitors customer review: Dilly Braimoh

My knee replacement prosthesis snapped because of a manufacturing fault. When claiming against the global prosthetic manufacturer, my legal representatives, Irwin Mitchell (IM) appeared to have poor settlement strategies - especially for general damages. Irwin Mitchell litigation cases are handled by para-legals with a law degree, who are paid through an incentive/commission scheme. They have no real interest in you as an individual. You are merely a ‘case’. They are only interested in high volume, easy out-of-Court settlements, , where the company’s fees are paid and the para-legal representatives have their commission, thus resulting in lower settlement outcomes. During what could be called ‘soft’ negotiations with the Defence, clients are always at ‘arm’s length’ at the end of a phone and not privy to negotiations - just the end offer. I felt pressurised by the para-legal’s recommendation to accept the Defence’s sole offer during a mobile phone conversation, because “…the Defence team has to catch a train.” Really? To that end, on a ‘no win, no fee’ basis, it appeared that Irwin Mitchell was mainly interested in covering their own costs. Para-legals are not incentivised in gaining the maximum settlement for their clients, as would a qualified lawyer. As with other companies, Irwin Mitchell should publish the Judicial College Guidelines for Personal Injury Awards. Prior to the settlement meeting, I was given a figure of a possible offer. I was then asked by my IM para-legal, “What is the lowest sum you would accept?” Of course, that gave Irwin Mitchell a sum they didn’t need to exceed in negotiation. Very soft and very lazy. In every respect, the lower than expected settlement offer was as a result of my lack of knowledge, rather than legal negotiating excellence on the part of Irwin Mitchell. There is a lack of transparency and extremely poor management of client expectations. i.e., despite a client ‘winning’ their case, there is no prior advice to the effect, that the client ALWAYS pay their own legal costs - important when the fees may well exceed 60% of the eventual award. As such, this will have an immense impact on how much money the client will eventually receive. As far as the ‘convenience and care’ of a client is concerned, although Irwin Mitchell have a London office, my case was handled by the Sheffield office. Subsequently, I had to travel from London to Leeds to see an IM-appointed specialist - at my own cost, which will not be reimbursed. I haven’t signed either a Form of Authority agreeing to a settlement or a Non-Disclosure document agreeing not to disclose the name of the prosthetic manufacturer. Although, over the 2 year period of my case, the Irwin Mitchell representative was extremely courteous, it would be reassuring to feel that, in final negotiations, I am represented by a reputable company that have the interests of their client at heart, rather than a speedy, fee-controlled resolution that tarnishes the name of ‘no win, no fee’ solicitors.