From time to time my firm is criticised by potential clients because we don’t want to take on their case because it is not economically viable for them and us.  We don’t like to take on a case, which will require our client travelling back and forth to medico legal appointments, getting all sorts of reports done, only to discover at the end of the matter that the case ends up being settled for an undertaking only, the client gets no money at all and is then very unhappy.  When we turn clients away on this basis, or refer them directly to another attorney or the Road Accident Fund for a second opinion should they so choose, we find that some people can get quite upset.  They feel that our advertising means we will take on any case, however minor or inconsequential – which is in fact not the case.

I have recently received complaints from clients of other attorneys based in Johannesburg who have written to us indicating that they are very unhappy with those attorneys because they received no compensation at all at the end of the case.  This can happen.  

What has compounded the situation is that in these particular cases the attorneys concerned actually approached the people from the beginning of the claim, something that is not allowed, saying that they got information from an X-ray department that the person had been injured and that they had a good case.  It is altogether one thing if you approach an attorney and insist they take on your case, which the attorney cautions you does not appear to be a good case, compared to the situation when the attorney initiates contact with you, tells you that you have a case and then later sings a new tune.  

These particular clients are extremely upset, saying that a lot of their time was wasted going to medico legal appointments only to be told that their injury, which was for a fractured clavicle, and which had no bearing on the job that the person does at all, is not a serious injury.  The fact of the matter is that a competent attorney should have been able to asses that from day one, and rather than give the client hope have advised them that they case would only be settled for an undertaking.  I believe our approach of advising the clients that they do not have an economically viable case and it is not worth doing, unless they are not on a Medical Aid, and will make use of the undertaking, is the better approach.  What these other attorneys have not informed the client of is that although the client is not receiving a single cent out of the case, the attorneys are going to recover costs, which will not be as much as they would normally make in a case, but for having wasted the client’s time, they are going to earn a fee.  My opinion is that a claim like this really should not have been lodged in the first place.  The client is unhappy and getting no compensation, the RAF is paying out and only the lawyers are getting paid.