header-logo header-logo

19 September 2018
Issue: 7809 / Categories: Legal News , Legal services , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Personal injury woes & highs

Quality of service in personal injury market ‘crucial’

Mystery shoppers have uncovered a series of poor responses from personal injury (PI) lawyers, including inappropriate replies, slowness to follow-up and a lack of enthusiasm.

Posing as potential clients, mystery shoppers hired by legal marketing collective First4Lawyers contacted 50 law firms both by telephone and through their website, ranking each firm’s efforts to gain their business.

One mystery shopper revealed: ‘I said it was an accident at work, to which she replied, “lovely, thank you,” with a level of enthusiasm that was entirely inappropriate.’ Another asked for the receptionist’s name three times and was told it didn’t matter because ‘she was going to lunch’.

Where the shopper left a message and the firm had to call back, an astonishing 23% of firms did not do so for more than two days, or at all. On the other hand, 35% of firms had called back within 15 minutes.

The shoppers also reported the lack of a sense that the firm really wanted the work, with only 52% of the firms attempting to add value or ‘go further’ for the potential client, and firms often failing to explain their value to the client and usually not offering to send further information or make a follow-up call.

Nevertheless, four-fifths of firms were ‘warm and engaging’ overall, according to the shoppers. Some 84% of web enquiries led to a telephone conversation. When asked to rate the likelihood of recommending the firm to others on a scale of 1-10, 62% of firms received an 8, 9 or perfect 10.

Qamar Anwar, First4Lawyers’s managing director, said: ‘Low-value PI is an unusual market in that there is no real price competition.

‘So, the quality of service, from the moment the phone rings or the email pings, is crucial. This is especially important given legal regulators’ efforts to encourage consumers to shop around for a lawyer.’

Issue: 7809 / Categories: Legal News , Legal services , Personal injury
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll