Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Wednesday, 7th January 2009

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the n/a site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

The solicitors, the miners and the millions of pounds in profit


Two accused of serious professional misconduct

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date:
19 November 2008
TWO solicitors from Doncaster have been accused of dishonestly making millions of pounds from miners' personal injury claims.
Jim Beresford, 58, said to be Britian's highest earning solicitor, and Douglas Smith, 51, both from Beresfords Solicitors, are appearing before the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal in London.

The pair are facing 11 allegations of "serious" profes
sional misconduct after allegedly failing to act in the best interests of their clients when taking cuts for payments made under the Government's coal health compensation scheme.

Outlining the allegations, Timothy Dutton QC, appearing for the Solicitors' Regulatory Authority, said the pair had failed to give adequate advice and had broken rules governing solicitors' practice.

They had also entered into conditional and contingency fee agreements against their clients' best interests, Mr Dutton added.

He said: "We say that the breaches were serious enough to constitute conduct unbefitting of a solicitor."

Beresfords Solicitors used to be based in Balby before moving to new Lakeside offices.

The court was told that Beresfords "expanded remarkably with the advent of coal claims."

In 1999, the company had an annual fee income of £684,152. In 2004, the firm had a gross profit of £8,758,743, which had risen to £36,205,805 in 2006.

Beresford and Smith's own earnings went from more than £182,000 in 2000 to £23,273,256 in 2006.

The company expanded from ten employees in 1998 to 244 employees in 2004.

Mr Dutton added: "Growth was in large part due to Beresfords obtaining large numbers of industrial injury claims from former miners."

He said it was estimated that 80 per cent of the company's profits came from mining health claims.

Nationwide 580,000 people have applied for payments after suffering chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) while 170,000 were for vibration white finger (VWF).

By November 2005 the Government had paid £2.6 billion in compensation which is expected to rise to £6.9 billion. As part of the scheme the Department for Trade and Industry (DTI) agreed to pay lawyers' fees in successful cases.

Beresfords had acted in more than 83,000 cases of COPD and more than 14,500 VWF claims, the court heard.

Both Beresford - a director of Doncaster Rovers - and Smith deny the charges.

If found guilty the pair could be struck off, suspended or fined £5,000 for each allegation.

The tribunal was told that in one case the firm deducted a "success fee" from the widow of a miner, leaving her with a total payout of just £217.73.

This was despite already claiming £2,431.08 in costs from the DTI Beresford and Smith also made arrangements with the Union of Democratic Mineworkers (UDM) and its support company, Vendside, that breached solicitors' practice rules, Mr Dutton said.

He added payments made to UDM/Vendside were effectively referral fees but were disguised as being in lieu of union subscriptions.
In January 2002 the firm made an independent agreement with Clare Walker, who worked for the UDM but who had set up her own company Walker and Co.

Mr Dutton said Beresfords paid the firm more than £736,000 under a "claims handling agreement."

He said the money was paid directly to Ms Walker with the instruction that all correspondence regarding the agreement but sent to her home.

"What was really going on was the concealing of the fact these were referral payments in breach of the rules," Mr Dutton said.

"All of this would have created grave concern in the mind of an honest solicitor."
The court was also told about the cases of two men who instructed Beresfords to deal with cases.
Rodney Bochenski, a VWF sufferer, entered into an agreement with the firm in 2000.
Of the £18,517.81 damages awarded, £4,795.72 was deducted by the company. This was on top of the DTI payments.

Another witness, Stephen Fountain, 45, from Doncaster, received £10,822 in damages in August 2002 and Beresfords deducted £2,601.30 after they had told him they would be deducting a percentage of his claim.

He said he complained to Beresfords after talking to fellow miners and discovering other firms provided the same services without charge.

In December 2003, Nigel Griffiths, parliamentary under-secretary for coal health, wrote to Beresfords describing the double payment as "unacceptable" and said he was writing to ask if Beresfords had been practising in this way.

Former miner John Straw, 59, from Rotherham, also gave evidence at the hearing saying he was "treated terribly" by Beresfords.

Mr Straw suffers from emphysema and VWF after working in Cadeby Colliery for 25 years.

He told the court he was initially told by the firm he would have to pay Beresfords costs of no more than £1,000. However, the company deducted £2,330 from his damages.

"I'm very bitter about Beresford and I just can't believe that he made so much and he took it off me to do it," Mr Straw said."
The hearing continues.




The full article contains 841 words and appears in n/a newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 19 November 2008 4:40 PM
  • Source: n/a
  • Location: Doncaster
 
 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.