Personal injury

[LAWWAL]

a novice to this forum and found that there isn’t much information about personal injury law. 
really will appreciate  lawyers/student-at-law who are in this field or have info about this field can provide some insights on the prospects, job opportunities, career path and also the pay scale  ( I known very practical) of a personal injury lawyer.

many thanks!

[Pendragon]

 

[LAWWAL]

10 minutes ago, Pendragon said:

 

Thanks !

 

Many of the comments are very negative/discriminative, it sounds pretty discouraging 😞

Aren’t there any positive aspects of personal injury law??

 

 

[BlockedQuebecois]

To be honest, that thread was one of the more glowing reviews of PI work I’ve ever seen. If you think that’s negative, I doubt you have the stomach for the kind of slag PI lawyers (particularly plaintiff side) get on the regular. 

Though if you left that thread feeling like no positives were discussed, I’m not sure any area of law will be particularly attractive. 

[Deadpool]

Personal injury law often gets an unfair reputation because of its lower barriers to entry (there are a lot of opportunities for articling students and junior lawyers in this area), and some bad clients and bad players in the business (with shady marketing). But if this is what you want to do, then you should not be discouraged by the negative feedback of others. You are helping victims recover from their pains and injuries, and serving an underserved population during a difficult time in their lives. There is a real access to justice service you are providing clients.

You have the opportunity to do a lot of mediations, and potentially, trial work, if you get into a higher-level firm that does more of that. There seems to be reasonable work hours and the pay is decent as well. Though, the case management and contingency fee model can be a pain to deal with. Your work depends a lot on your ability to bring in your own business or have other lawyers who can refer that business to you. It also depends on the types of cases and clients you are attracting, and what kind of money they can bring. My peers working in this field generally seem to enjoy it, or tolerate it fine, and I do not see many complaints from them. 

Overall, there are good and bad lawyers and law firms in every field. If you are someone that enjoys this line of work, and take the time to learn and provide good service to your clients, then you will do well for yourself and gain a solid reputation. 

Edited November 7, 2021 by Deadpool

[LAWWAL]

1 hour ago, Deadpool said:

Personal injury law often gets an unfair reputation because of its lower barriers to entry (there are a lot of opportunities for articling students and junior lawyers in this area), and some bad clients and bad players in the business (with shady marketing). But if this is what you want to do, then you should not be discouraged by the negative feedback of others. You are helping victims recover from their pains and injuries, and serving an underserved population during a difficult time in their lives. There is a real access to justice service you are providing clients.

You have the opportunity to do a lot of mediations, and potentially, trial work, if you get into a higher-level firm that does more of that. There seems to be reasonable work hours and the pay is decent as well. Though, the case management and contingency fee model can be a pain to deal with. Your work depends a lot on your ability to bring in your own business or have other lawyers who can refer that business to you. It also depends on the types of cases and clients you are attracting, and what kind of money they can bring. My peers working in this field generally seem to enjoy it, or tolerate it fine, and I do not see many complaints from them. 

Overall, there are good and bad lawyers and law firms in every field. If you are someone that enjoys this line of work, and take the time to learn and provide good service to your clients, then you will do well for yourself and gain a solid reputation. 

@Deadpoolthank you so much for the post, i feel more hopeful after reading this. PI has always been my interests for a long time but didn’t aware that it is so understated in the legal world. 
thanks again!

[Deadpool]

48 minutes ago, LAWWAL said:

@Deadpoolthank you so much for the post, i feel more hopeful after reading this. PI has always been my interests for a long time but didn’t aware that it is so understated in the legal world. 
thanks again!

No worries. I also want to add that if you are still looking for employment in this area, these are considered some of the best personal injury firms to work at.

https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/surveys-reports/boutique-firm-rankings/chasing-justice-not-ambulances-2021-top-personal-injury-boutiques/357096 

https://www.lexpert.ca/rankings?listing_type=firm&product=DIR&practice_area=P1&province=&search_text= 

[BlockedQuebecois]

8 hours ago, Deadpool said:

You are helping victims recover from their pains and injuries, and serving an underserved population during a difficult time in their lives. There is a real access to justice service you are providing clients.

This is perhaps a bit nitpicky, and I generally agree with your post (it's good advice, as per usual for your posts). But I have to quibble with the idea that most plaintiff-side PI lawyers are serving an underserved population. 

As you note, most PI cases are MVA/Slip & Fall, or Med Mal. The people who suffer those types of injuries are often people who are generally underserved by the legal profession (i.e. regular people), but I don't think there's any real argument that someone injured in an MVA is going to have a difficult time finding representation with regards to their MVA.

The market for plaintiff side work, particularly routine work, is quite saturated due to the low barriers to entry, relatively high financial reward, and availability of contingency fee arrangements (and a corresponding increase in people seeking representation). Most PI lawyers are fighting other lawyers for files, not turning down files because they don't want to work with that particular client. A person with actual injuries, even very minor ones, will generally have no problem finding a lawyer to represent them on a contingency basis. 

Additionally, while PI lawyers should often be commended for providing access to justice and carrying some risk in many of their files, it's also worth mentioning that the only reason most PI lawyers truly increase access to justice is because they're one of the few areas (depending on province) where contingency fee arrangements are allowable. And while contingency fee arrangements often increase access to justice, they are often very exploitative, because the default 33% contingency fee for MVA cases rarely represents an accurate assessment of the value of the lawyer's work on the file or the risk the lawyer is taking on. 

I only mention this because if a regular plaintiff-side PI lawyer told me about how they serve underserved populations and increase access to justice, I would scoff at them. There are a lot of lawyers who serve underserved populations—those working in clinics, criminal defence and family lawyers working on legal aid tariffs or sliding scales, PI lawyers working on police liability cases—but I don't think regular PI lawyers are one of them.

And while I do think PI lawyers increase access to justice, the ones I've met who talk about how they do so have always come across as self important to me. They might factually be increasing access to justice through the use of contingency fees, but they're doing so for financial reward and in a manner that is often exploitative of their client (and unless they are in the habit or routinely leaving money on the table to have their contingency fee match their value to the file, even the most ethical and diligent PI lawyer will be, on occasion, exploiting their clients). 

Edited November 7, 2021 by BlockedQuebecois

[HammurabiTime]

At the outset, I'll make clear my experience with contingency fee agreements is outside the realm of PI. With that caveat, the premise that contingency fees are always exploitative fails to account for the very real benefit of the time value of money being saved by not having to pay out of pocket monthly for the life of the file, which given the difficulty in getting court time in Ontario is often three or more years. A file taken on contingency that's litigated through trial often will only have a marginal difference in terms of value to a lawyer on a contingency versus hourly basis. From speaking with people that do PI trial work I have the impression this is true in that area as well.

Finally, while it may be true that it's easy to find a MVA lawyer, lots of people with meritorious professional liability claims have trouble finding lawyers able and willing to litigate those claims on a contingency basis.

[BlockedQuebecois]

22 minutes ago, HammurabiTime said:

With that caveat, the premise that contingency fees are always exploitative fails to account for the very real benefit of the time value of money being saved by not having to pay out of pocket monthly for the life of the file, which given the difficulty in getting court time in Ontario is often three or more years.

Fortunately, "contingency fees are always exploitative" wasn't my premise. My premise was that they are often exploitative. 

And it's telling that your rebuttal relies on the contingency fee being a reasonable estimate of the total value the lawyer provides if the file goes to trial. Going to trial is obviously a very rare outcome for any given PI file, and I don't think contingency fees are necessarily a bad overall estimate of the lawyer's value if a matter goes to trial. It actually wouldn't surprise me for many PI lawyers to lose money on at least some of the cases they take to trial, relative to the hours they put into the file at their usual billable rate.

Where contingency fees are often exploitative is where a matter settles before trial. Which is obviously the vast, vast, vast majority of routine PI files. 

Edited November 7, 2021 by BlockedQuebecois

[napqueen]

I summered with a reputable plaintiff-side PI firm and will be articling there. Here are my thoughts:

CFAs: I never understand why people think that you either can make money (think corporate Big Law) or improve A2J, as if those have to be mutually exclusive. Of course I want to make money, but I feel better about it when I’m helping those who otherwise would not be able to access the legal system, rather than having large corporations as my clients. As for the potential for CFAs to be exploitative, you have to remember the assumed risk that the firm has to carry, and that they often are helping the clients get treatment through referrals, AB specialists to help navigate that world, and sometimes out-right paying for treatment. And for what it’s worth, the clients I’ve dealt with always felt as those the lawyer on the file well-deserved their fee, even when it settled at or before mediation. 

Workload: the workload seemed very reasonable over the summer, but there were no trials. Obviously, the workload will fluctuate, with year-end seeming to be busier than the summer as insurance companies are wrapping up the fiscal year.

Pay: my articling salary is comparable to “big law” articling salaries in my city,  but would be consistent with boutique salaries in Toronto. 

If you have any other questions you would like answered from the student perspective, I’m happy to answer them on this thread or through a DM!

[123]

On 11/7/2021 at 8:56 AM, BlockedQuebecois said:

Fortunately, "contingency fees are always exploitative" wasn't my premise. My premise was that they are often exploitative. 

And it's telling that your rebuttal relies on the contingency fee being a reasonable estimate of the total value the lawyer provides if the file goes to trial. Going to trial is obviously a very rare outcome for any given PI file, and I don't think contingency fees are necessarily a bad overall estimate of the lawyer's value if a matter goes to trial. It actually wouldn't surprise me for many PI lawyers to lose money on at least some of the cases they take to trial, relative to the hours they put into the file at their usual billable rate.

Where contingency fees are often exploitative is where a matter settles before trial. Which is obviously the vast, vast, vast majority of routine PI files. 

I was told that at many Toronto PI firms, it's possible that I would not first-chair a trial in my first few years of practice. I don't know if that's necessarily true. But not getting any trial or hearing experience (beyond discoveries or whatever) was a total non-starter for me.

In defence, lawyers shouldn't represent client on plea if they're not conceivably prepared to go to trial. The basic idea being that if you're not willing to try the case as counsel, you're not offering the client a genuine choice on whether to plead guilty. You're risking a coerced plea, and therefore ineffective assistance of counsel. 

The stakes aren't quite the same in most civil litigation. But I don't know how I would feel comfortable negotiating settlements, if I didn't have the leverage of being able to skillfully try the case. And if I had no trial experience, I wouldn't really feel that I had that leverage.  

[Blurg]

3 hours ago, realpseudonym said:

I was told that at many Toronto PI firms, it's possible that I would not first-chair a trial in my first few years of practice. I don't know if that's necessarily true. But not getting any trial or hearing experience (beyond discoveries or whatever) was a total non-starter for me.

Point of clarification for other people reading this, not being first chair doesn’t equate to not getting any trial or hearing experience. I’ve second (and even third) chaired in a number of trials and hearings at this point and it’s been incredibly useful. I’ve always been in charge of questioning many witnesses and drafting submissions, but with the safety net of having someone to help bounce things off of and making sure I’m  on the right track. 

[123]

1 minute ago, Blurg said:

Point of clarification for other people reading this, not being first chair doesn’t equate to not getting any trial or hearing experience. I’ve second (and even third) chaired in a number of trials and hearings at this point and it’s been incredibly useful. I’ve always been in charge of questioning many witnesses and drafting submissions, but with the safety net of having someone to help bounce things off of and making sure I’m  on the right track. 

That’s fair. 

[HammurabiTime]

23 hours ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

Fortunately, "contingency fees are always exploitative" wasn't my premise. My premise was that they are often exploitative. 

And it's telling that your rebuttal relies on the contingency fee being a reasonable estimate of the total value the lawyer provides if the file goes to trial. Going to trial is obviously a very rare outcome for any given PI file, and I don't think contingency fees are necessarily a bad overall estimate of the lawyer's value if a matter goes to trial. It actually wouldn't surprise me for many PI lawyers to lose money on at least some of the cases they take to trial, relative to the hours they put into the file at their usual billable rate.

Where contingency fees are often exploitative is where a matter settles before trial. Which is obviously the vast, vast, vast majority of routine PI files. 

Your premise is unclear to me for a few reasons but the inclusion of this quote: "even the most ethical and diligent PI lawyer will be, on occasion, exploiting their clients" makes me think that the distinction between 'often' and 'always' is almost one without a difference having regard to the commercial reality in which these agreements exist. I also don't think its particularly telling that I pointed to the expense of trial given that neither party to a contingency fee agreement knows ex ante if the action will be tried (and if you are including "the most ethical and diligent" of PI lawyers amongst the exploiters, such lawyers would in my view be willing to try any action they accepted a retainer for).

In my view, an agreement that was "exploitative" with most outcomes, given that most actions settle before trial, would be exploitative at the outset regardless of the particular outcome actually achieved given that no one knows at the outset if or when an action will settle. I don't know precisely what you mean by exploitative but presumably it means in some way clients end up paying too much through these agreements while the lawyers do little to increase settlement value, akin to what Lester Brickman has argued in the American context (contested by other academics like Charles Silver). I'm not aware of any great sources of empirical research on how PI lawyers in Canadian jurisdictions affect settlement values. I also don't know where you'd intend to draw the line at what an acceptable profit margin is in this context and I'm not particularly interested in speculating on that. I think any meaningful discussion would require some refinement on what is meant by 'exploitative' and how 'value added' is to be measured as between an hourly retainer and a contingency retainer, or whatever your preferred billing arrangement to compare contingency agreements with is.

Not arising directly from your post but any meaningful economic evaluation of CFAs needs to account for the fact that when you prosecute on a contingency basis you are also providing a service that's equivalent to a loan or advance on fees and some form of insurance. That has value and that value is evident to clients opting to enter into a contingency agreement. This is something that I have not really seen meaningful analysis of in Canadian commentary on CFAs (the latter being pretty limited and frankly employing rudimentary methods like Professor Hutchinson's report for the IBC that was relied on by the LSO working group responsible for proposing amendments to what CFAs are permissible in Ontario). Some of the economic literature looking at the US market suggests that even in the American market where I think it is fair to assume that contingency fees are more profitable, a great many cases do not generate large fees versus work required to achieve resolution. The above paper surveyed plaintiff PI firms and found their business model seemed to rely on large fees originating from a small number of big cases. I think this cuts against the idea of widespread exploitation as a result of contingency retainers.

I think it's evident to anyone that has been involved in negotiating a CFA that clients value them specifically because they allow prosecution without out-of-pocket expenses and reduce downside risk, even if that comes at a premium. Before its amendment in July, the regulation under the Solicitors Act governing CFAs required disclosure of hourly rates and that retention on an hourly basis be discussed before executing a CFA. I've watched clients, in fairness outside the PI context, crunch the numbers and opt to proceed on a contingency basis after determining for themselves that there would probably be a premium over an hourly rate. To them the value of having no out-of-pocket expenses and the elimination of downside risk was apparently worth this possibility. Of course, its possible that as Hutchinson suggests the insurance aspect may not be particularly valuable but his analysis was admittedly based on almost no data. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with any analysis that does a good job of describing the economic aspects of plaintiff PI litigation in any Canadian jurisdiction so I think its speculative to suggest these agreements result in widespread exploitation.