Jump to content

ronlawyer1420

Members
  • Content Count

    152
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

132 Good People

About ronlawyer1420

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The planned permanent impairment compensation is NOT the same as non-pecs. The closest analogy under tort would be for loss of future earning capacity but much less generous. It is also similar as the no-fault WCB award for a permanent functional impairment PFI award but MUCH LESS generous.
  2. I don’t think many of you here understand. Non pecs will be abolished even on a meat chart basis. There will be no lump sump income replacement. It will be monthly or weekly TTD and subject to be cut off at any time by the adjuster - just like Part 7 today except no tort claims no right to sue.
  3. The 20% in insurance savings comes at a price, though, too, for the policy holder. If 80% of your coverage is gone then rates should be going down a lot more than 20%. It's like saying, this house is cheaper by 20% so celebrate. But the house is 80% smaller and in an drastically inferior location. Not sure why anyone would be so stoked unless they haven't really analyzed the implications. And yes, I have a stake in this for full disclosure but also have a detailed understanding of the implications.
  4. Now that is swallowing the NDP "Kool-Aid" . ICBC would take unreasonable positions despite reasonable plaintiffs and counsel - often forcing cases to the courthouse steps and the expenditure of disbursements that could have been avoided. But in reality the fix was in - the government was already planning for no-fault before the Crowder decision on expert reports came down. They used COVID-19 as the cover to quietly force through no-fault last summer and strip British Columbians of their rights. It's WorkSafe on wheels for British Columbians and most MVA victims will be screwed.
  5. In Vancouver, there are definitely family law firms that advertise on radio/TV. One very successful family firm has a great line "call us before your spouse does". We get most of our PI referrals from previous clients referring friends and health care professionals including MDs.
  6. Many lawyers have the retirement plan of working until they drop; I have files with 75 or even 80 year old lawyers.
  7. A lot of real estate lawyers I know are always complaining about how much they make. I think it is because they are comparing themselves to their wealthy developer and investor clients, not the average person. Then, too, I do sympathize with the frequent observation that a residential conveyance might generate a $700 fee with all of the inherent risk/bother compared to a realtor selling that same house with a commission that might be $20,000, $50,000 or $100,000.
  8. Agree X 2. Biggest losers: car crash victims who will be left hanging when ICBC cuts off their Part 7 no fault benefits off with no one to help them and no tort claim to get non-pecuniary damages. The NDP snuck this all through in the middle of a pandemic - no referendum, no public consultation. It really smells wrong (like the election) but the NDP have even more power as of today than last week.
  9. And they say PI lawyers have the most cringe worthy ads! At least they used real lawyers!
  10. Problem occurs when you have law profs who haven't practiced or haven't practiced in years give advice that touches on the challenges of practice where the phone is ringing off the hook and you are in the middle of trial prep while trying to manage your practice. Also keep in mind that law society rules also recommend cutting other counsel some slack where things don't go perfectly. There are rules about returning communications promptly but honestly when I'm in the middle of trial/trial prep/mediation it's often impossible to immediately return calls or emails. The big one where you have a mandatory duty to report and should have an antenna out is misuse of trust funds or undertakings. I would also add unfair treatment/abuse of employees/clients and serious lack of courtesy to other counsel would qualify. I have to say that if you are at a firm that treats people poorly, you need to get out of there.
  11. ***as a lawyer I am cringing when reading the above posts*****
  12. Here's my takeaway: 1. The caps themselves have not completely killed MVA injury practice. At our firm, for example, we've been busy with new good cases despite caps. 2. No-fault starting next May would be the killer of MVA work in the future. Then, too, it's still possible for no-fault to be cancelled. The private insurers and the main opposition party are against no-fault. The enabling legislation barely passed with weak support. The privates can't make money in a no-fault system so are pushing back. The NDP panicked rushed through without public consultation or working out problems - unlike what happened in other provinces. My prediction is it will be a botched job. There are court challenges against the new system on which hearings have already started so it's not a done deal forever . . . yet. 3. If your firm runs out of ICBC work in two years, there are still some firms both defence and plaintiff that have MVA work for 4-6 years who could take you on. 4. As you note, your firm already is exploring alternate practice areas. In two years immigration law will be very busy as the COVID backlog is cleared, for example. 5. Your civil lit experience will carry you through a lot of different areas. So don't panic!
  13. No, WCB No-fault work is not viable in 95% of the cases. I’ve tried that and while you are right that there is a lot of demand from clients, only about 5% can afford to pay you by the hour. And contingency fee work is not possible because control of the system by the insurer is so complete in a pure and Crown Corp no-fault system that they have the power to bypass your contingency fee even if the client signs a direction. Further, you have to the charge by the hour or flat fee for what are usually 20-30 appeals. Not viable except to the wealthiest clients and legal aid clinics. Most are not because they are out of work by definition. Expert reports are reimbursed at such low rates by WorkSafe that experts won’t write reports for you. Access to justice crisis - yes WCB is that as will ICBC if they go pure no-fault. Economic work for a firm even in the most catastrophic cases, no.
  14. Alarmist in terms of PI closing up or alarmist re: challenges about changing practice areas? In terms of ICBC no-fault, it will depend on who is elected in the future. If the BC Liberals get back in, they will privatize ICBC and private companies won't go with the pure no-fault (WCB style) model like what is proposed because they can't make money with that system (they tried in Ontario in the NDP Bob Rae era). It would be more like Ontario or Nova Scotia - caps and thresholds for sure but not pure no-fault. However, I do see the NDP getting back in if an election were to be held right now.
  15. I feel for you. Unfortunately, it’s open season in BC against lawyers in general as the BC Government led unfortunately by the AG no less whips up public sentiment against them to sell ICBC no-fault. The BC govt is doing everything to reduce the role of lawyers in society not just PI lawyers; just look at the CRT rules restricting people from retaining lawyers for strata issues, non profits corporate disputes and small claims. The NDP gov would rather have union reps replacing lawyers in most advocacy roles. And let’s face people don’t like lawyers until they have one so they are receptive to this nonsense. If I were younger, I would be getting out of Dodge aka NDP run BC. I would look at Ontario or California if I could swing it.
×
×
  • Create New...