Letters roundup: 28 January 2022

Finding fault with compensation

Former health secretary Jeremy Hunt appears to misunderstand the clinical negligence compensation system when he suggests lawyers resist a no-fault scheme out of self-interest.

The government has considered and ditched no-fault systems on several occasions over the years. Probably partly because such a scheme might well end up being more expensive than what we have now. Decisions would still have to be made as to whether a case fell within a no-fault scheme and to what extent harm was caused by the incident. In short, a no-fault scheme is not the panacea some people think, a point also made by the Medical Defence Union.

NHS expenditure on clinical negligence may seem high, but it is important that negligently injured claimants are able to receive appropriate redress. It should be noted that the NHS only pays legal costs where it has agreed or is found liable to compensate that injured patient. A significant number of claimants only started proceedings because they wanted answers but found themselves faced with a culture of denial, making legal action the only way to get those answers. If appropriate admissions were made earlier in the process, legal costs would be substantially reduced.

I. Stephanie Boyce

President, Law Society of England and Wales

Portal confusion

The brains behind the Official Injury Claim portal have apparently been left scratching their heads as to why so few litigants in person are using the service.

Instead of commissioning research and wasting yet more time and money, let me answer the question for them.

The current system is too complicated. That is why calls to the portal support centre are up. And at 68 pages long, the user guide only adds to the confusion. Claimants do not understand how it works.

Simplify the process and market it properly if you want to see more LiPs and fewer lawyers. The industry might then believe that the system is designed to help claimants rather than put them off.

Qamar Anwar

Managing director, First4Lawyers, Huddersfield

Lawyers must keep up with tech

I noted with interest Sir Geoffrey Vos’s comments regarding the need for every lawyer to understand crypto, blockchain and smart contracts (news, 11 January).

There is a tendency in some circles to treat cryptoassets with scepticism. That may be proved correct: the bottom may fall out of the market. However, like it or not, cryptoassets have developed into an established asset class. They will need to be included in wills and divided in divorces, as well as traced in fraud claims and analysed in money laundering investigations. No one is suggesting that law firms must start to accept payment in anything but fiat currencies, but to ignore crypto is to ignore something estimated to be owned by more than 2 million people in the UK alone.

Smart contracts and blockchain technology, meanwhile, are distinct from the cryptoassets which use them. I suspect the dismissal of these innovative new technologies in the comments to your article is born of a lack of understanding.

Where clients are seeking to use the immutable nature of a blockchain-based distributed ledger for supply-chain records or verification of financial documents, or a smart contract to streamline administration of a construction agreement, they will need advice on the terms of the relevant contracts and remedies available in the event of breach.

It is not necessary for lawyers to use the same technology as our clients, or even the same currencies. However, a blanket refusal to even try to understand technologies being embraced by our clients is unlikely to be acceptable for much longer.

Mary Young

Partner, Kingsley Napley LLP, London EC2