No- Win No Fee Frank is Champ of the Underdog

Who do you prefer in the morning? The energetic ranting of Radio 1’s Chris Moyles or the more sedate Irish lilt of Radio 2’s Terry Wogan?

The dilemma can provoke heated debate, particularly across the generation divide. Whatever your preference, not many people would be willing to come to blows over it. Yet that’s exactly what happened in a council building in Aberdeen, when two employees literally butted heads over the issue in 2004.

When the dust settled both employees were sacked but one eventually got his job back appeal. Considering the returning employee (who incidentally, favoured Wogan) was the perpetrator of the head butt, it says a lot for the man who successfully fought his corner, Aberdeen solicitor Frank Lefevre. Yet its just one of the many seemingly lost causes Frank has taken on and won.

High-profile

Apart from a brief stint as an advertising copywriter, he has been a solicitor for nearly 50 years, specialising in court work. In those years he’s fought a number of high profile cases including acting for survivors and families of victims of the Piper Alpha and Lockerbie disaster and those affected by the Braer oil spill off Shetland. But more than the landmark cases the 72-year-old won, he’ll perhaps be best remembered for what he’s done for the legal profession. In 1988 he became the first lawyer in Britain to take on cases on a “no-win, no-fee” basis when he set up Aberdeen-based Quantum Claims, which now has five offices across Scotland. It was a move that sent shockwaves through the stuffy world of the legal profession. “When I started doing them it was big news, almost a revolutionary idea,” says Frank. “I was involved in a civil case here that meant having to work with an American legal firm. That company took cases on no-win, no-fee and I thought it might just work here.

“I was frustrated with the length of time it took things to come to fruition in the legal system here. I hoped this might inject a bit of urgency but it was a big risk.” A chance meeting at a wedding, however, ensured the fledgling venture had all the publicity it needed. “I was introduced to the editor of The Times and my business was mentioned to him. Within days a story about it was on the front page.” In no-win, no-fee cases a fee is only payable if there’s a favourable result. If the client wins or settles, the solicitor’s fees are usually based on a percentage of the award. Frank goes on, “The public’s initial reaction was great and I was inundated with calls from people eager to pursue civil cases, but a lot of them were not cases that could be taken forward.

“In the first few months I’d have people who were 30 telling me that when they were three their granny dropped them on their head so could I sue her for them. “Of course I couldn’t but I’d always write them a long letter back telling them exactly why I couldn’t take on the case.

“It would take me an age but I always thought that if they ever did have a legitimate reason to contact a solicitor they’d automatically think of me.”

Suspicion

The legal profession viewed Frank’s venture with suspicion and he was soon embroiled in a feud with the Law Society of Scotland. They issued a simple ultimatum – drop no-win, no-fee or they’d revoke his right to practice law. When he refused to budge the Law Society took him to court and the case rumbled on for two years – with Frank emerging victorious. But Quantum Claims’ business model did open the floodgates for many opportunists. As many companies try to settle cases before they reach court with potentially large settlements, many soon saw neon pound signs. “There were plenty of opportunistic companies that tried to cash in and many of them have since gone out of business,” says Frank. “I think the fact we were the first company doing it and are still going speaks volume of our professionalism.

“I’m often called things like an ambulance-chaser but that’s par for the course. My main priority was always winning the respect of the public. After that the respect of my peers will follow.

“It’s amazing how perceptions change over the years. Long after the dust settled on my battle with the Law Society I was appointed to their council.”

Quantum Claims has handled around 50 000 enquiries and made settlement of around £50 million, including 16 different claims for the Piper Alpha disaster netting claimants almost £2 million. Frank’s never been busier and any talk of retirement is summarily dismissed.

In fact, he’s now branching out into songwriting and charity work. Frank has written a dozen songs he hopes famous Scots will record for a CD to raise cash for his soon-to-be set up kids charity Quines And Loons – Kids Wherever.
“We’re at an early stage but we hope to have it finished soon with a few well-known Scots and some English artistes making appearances too.”

Quines And Loons is planned as an umbrella charity, with each performer picking a children’s charity to share a slice of the profits. Frank’s own children play a big part in the law business. Three of his and wife Hazel’s children work with Quantum Claims. So Paul is a director and both daughters, Tracy and Julie, work there. Julie’s partner, John, is also a director. And last, but by no means least, is Managing Director, George Clark, who Frank says is very much a part of this family business. The Lefevres also have three grandchildren. Professionally, Frank was reinvigorated by a House of Lords ruling last December in the case of an offshore scaffolder who, getting out of his bunk bed, slipped on the ladder and fell, badly injuring his back. H was awarded a “substantial six-figure sum” yet at time the case seemed a lost cause. A civil court and the Court of Session had rejected the claim so it headed to the highest court in the land, the House of Lords. “It’s probably the biggest case I’ve ever won,” Frank proudly admits. “I’ve been to the Lords three times before and lost every time.”

Foolproof

“We’d already paid more than £100,000 in legal costs. If we’d lost in the Lords we’d have been looking at a deficit of around £300,000.” Given the Quantum Claims is saddled with the costs if they lose, you’d think Frank would have some secret, foolproof selection process for picking cases. But you would be wrong. “Some companies only take on cases after they calculate exactly what percentage chance they have of winning but that’s not me.”

“It’s more a gut feeling. If you have a sporting chance I’ll take the case.”
And with a proven heavyweight hitter like Frank in your corner a sporting chance may be all you need.

£3.625mn Damages for Batched Brain Operation

A woman who was left severely brain damaged and wheelchair-bound after a neuro-surgeon attempted to remove a brain cyst with a pair of medical tweezers expected to receive £3.625mn in damages.

The 49-year-old former care home worker was admitted to the neurosurgery unit after a CT scan revealed she had a benign colloid cyst on the brain. According to her lawyer, the surgeon not only accessed the cyst "using the wrong surgical approach but attempted to biopsy the cyst by tugging at it with rongeurs (medical tweezers). In fact the cyst was attached to a vein and as a result caused a large brain hemorrhage."

As a result of the surgical errors, she is now completely paralyzed and her left side, has severe memory loss, mental impairment, is partially blind and has no sense of smell. After initial reluctance to admit any negligence, the hospital admitted liability after independent medical experts Confirmed that her injuries arose because of the way her brain operation was carried out.

The settlement of £3.625 million consists of a lump sum of £1.325 million and a £120,000 annual payment guaranteed for life.

Negligence Claim after a Road Accident Injuring a Cyclist

In an important case covering duty of care during excavation work a 56 year old housewife, Ms, C sought damages from T, a joiner and small building contractor.

Ms C sought damages in respect of injuries sustained after she went over the handlebars of her bicycle near a site on which T was working. She claimed that she fell from her bicycle as a result of debris left on the road following work contracted out by T to M, a company specialising in excavation. Ms C endured serious and painful injuries, losing a crown from her tooth, suffering a broken jaw and a collapsed lung.

Ms C argued that it would reasonable to anticipate the danger of debris causing an accident. She asserted that (1) it should have been anticipated that some debris would contaminate the road and it was Ts duty to take reasonable care to avoid deposits or remove any as soon as was reasonably possible; and (2) T could not escape liability even if he proved that M were independent contractors: the hiring of plant and drivers to do a job under the direction of the main contractor was not a subcontract.

The action was dismissed because it was held that (1) there was insufficient evidence to conclude what had caused Ms C to fall, and witness statements did not support her account of what happened. (2) It was not proved that T knew the road was subjected to deposits of mud to a material extent as to make it reasonably foreseeable that passing cyclists might come to harm, furthermore, the fact that deposits were 150 yards from the site of the accident made it less likely that the incident was a foreseeable consequence of the work.

It was observed by the court that it was clear from the evidence that the relationship between T and M was more than just a hiring of equipment, and had the matter gone to debate earlier, it might well be that the issue of whether Ms C had pled enough to found a case on the neighbourhood principle would have been resolved out of court.

It was the court's opinion, that had liability been established, the parties were agreed that compensation of damages would have been assessed at £12,360 at 4 per cent from the date of the accident to the date of decree, with loss for "hurt" at £294 with interest at 8 per cent, and patrimonial loss in respect of dental costs at £643 with interest on £243 from 1 January 2002 until the date of decree, less the deduction of 25 per cent for contributory negligence.