this is not legal advice, and i've never used them, but i would be VERY wary of no win no fee practices. anything that sounds too good to be true normally is.
this is not legal advice, and i've never used them, but i would be VERY wary of no win no fee practices. anything that sounds too good to be true normally is.
+1
On the one hand, a solicitor is unlikely to offer NWNF unless they think they can win the case.
On the other hand, the best solicitors don't need things like NWNF to attract business & if the employer is a large organisation, you can bet they'll be getting the best advice they can afford...
There's also the question of what fee you'll be liable for if you do win - what the point of winning if you have to hand 50% over in fees?
There seems to be a misapprehension as to what NWNF is (at least in England) in these quotes - NWNF was illegal in England until 1999 but the government in an attempt to cut government funding removed legal aid from most areas of civil dispute (i.e. between two private persons rather than between the state and a private person). In order to do this but still allow people with good cases access to justice they allowed conditional fee agreements.
In most English and Welsh civil litigation the legal costs are paid by the loser of the case - the NWNF agreement contains two elements: 1, an uplift on legal costs - so if the complainant wins, his lawyers can recover their costs plus a percentage for their risk (usually between 35%-100% depending on the risks taken) from the costs paid by the other side and 2, an insurance policy which pays out the costs if the complainant loses the case.
So contrary to what Antag says a winning complainant does not pay over their compensation in fees to their lawyers as the fees (costs) are paid by the other side. Its not a system where 'its too good to be true' because NWNF is a tweaking (a government tweaking, that is) of the principle that the loser pays the costs of an legal action. Most solicitors will do NWNF actions if the case is suitable (i.e. a 65% chance of succeeding +) - its nothing to do with being at the discreditable end of the legal services market. Most NWNF cases settle as the lawyers have more say (as they are taking the risk) as to when the case is suitable for agreement.
I should add that in Employment Tribunals there is a principle that legal costs are borne by the party fighting the case and so employment law is one of the few areas where lawyer is allowed to take a cut of the winnings from the complainant. Given that an employee has a statistical across the board chance of winning of 33% I can't think of many Employment lawyers who will do risky NWNF agreements.
