N
Incompetent Representation and Lost Compensation: Truth Legal Review
My experience with Truth Legal in handling my personal injury cases has been nothing short of a complete nightmare. I feel compelled to share this negative review to warn others about the woefully inadequate legal representation I received. From the outset, the service I received from Truth Legal was terrible. Before the trial had started I had to switch solicitors four times, wasting time and money revisiting previously covered ground. The lack of internal coordination within the law firm demonstrated a severe lack of professionalism and a total disregard for my time and concerns as a client. During the trial my appointed barrister's performance was completely unacceptable. Despite the judge explicitly limiting questions about my criminal record to a single broad inquiry, the defendants' barrister was allowed to bombard me with a relentless barrage of intrusive and unnecessary queries. Shockingly, my barrister failed to raise any objections or address this blatant violation of the court's instructions. The lack of advocacy left me vulnerable and exposed, causing irreparable damage to my case and leaving me utterly dissatisfied. Equally disheartening was the barrister's questioning of the defence witness regarding the accident scene, which was an unlit section of road with a dangerous, uncovered ditch and a complete absence of hazard lights, barriers, or warning signs. What adds insult to injury is that I had photographic evidence clearly depicting the hazardous conditions, while the defence had no such evidence. However, my barrister failed to capitalise on this crucial advantage during questioning. No inquiries were made to uncover why the defendants neglected to take photographs of their worksite, despite it now being considered standard procedure. When my barrister inexplicably dropped his line of questioning regarding this I felt like shouting out in the courtroom! It was baffling to witness the missed opportunity to ask the crucial question: "Why didn't the defendants take pictures of their worksite?" Mobile phone cameras have been around for over 20 years, and in an era where it is common to capture crucial moments on these devices it was astonishing that the defendants were not questioned on how they had failed to utilise these most basic tools. Their lack of any photographic evidence went unchallenged. This failure to pursue such a fundamental line of inquiry further undermined my case and left me frustrated beyond measure. As a result, this case was dismissed without any compensation awarded. In another personal injury claim with Truth Legal, I was left utterly disappointed. It is crucial to emphasise the complete failure of Truth Legal solicitors to communicate with my insurance company. The defendant openly admitted to speeding at the time of the incident, providing a solid basis for establishing their responsibility. I diligently provided all the necessary requested evidence directly to Truth Legal, but their inability to relay any of this vital information resulted in my insurance company settling the accident as my fault. This oversight had a profound and detrimental impact on the strength of my case. What makes matters worse is that after enduring four long years of legal proceedings, Truth Legal suddenly dropped my case, despite the presence of a clear 50/50 liability scenario. However, due to the significant amount of time that had elapsed until that point and the solicitors' incompetence resulting in the accident being settled at my fault, it became impossible for me to find alternative legal representation willing to take on the case at that junction. This dual failure of Truth Legal solicitors to effectively communicate with my insurance company and their subsequent dropping of the case has had a profoundly negative impact on my pursuit of justice. In summary my experience with Truth Legal in handling my personal injury cases has been marred by consistent incompetence and complete failure in providing effective representation. In court the barrister failed to raise appropriate objections, and failed to capitalise on the advantage of my photographic evidence, or press the defence for their complete lack of evidence, and the constant switching of solicitors caused me undue stress and resulted in disastrous outcomes. Both of my cases were lost or dropped without any compensation. Their inability to protect my rights, lackluster courtroom performance, and overall disregard for client satisfaction have left me deeply dissatisfied. I strongly caution against entrusting legal matters to Truth Legal as with both my cases they have proven to be unreliable and incapable of securing justice and compensation for their clients.
A representative from Truth Legal Limited responded to this review
We are sorry that you have felt the need to leave a negative review about our services provided to you over 18 months ago. We note that many of your concerns appear to relate to the advocacy carried out by the barrister instructed on your case at trial. The barrister is not an employee of Truth Legal and should you wish to raise any concerns regarding their service you may wish to contact their chambers. Unfortunately no litigation is 100% certain to succeed. All personal injury clients of Truth Legal are advised of litigation risk. It is open to the Judge to decide on the basis of the evidence provided by the parties which evidence they prefer. Unfortunately in your case the Judge considered the witness evidence of the Defendant’s witnesses to be more credible and therefore did not provide judgment in your favour. It is also usual, although we appreciate somewhat unpleasant, for a barrister for the Defendant to use a Claimant’s criminal record/other issues to try and persuade the Court that the Claimant’s account is not credible. The decision of a Judge and how evidence is interpreted by the Court are largely outside of our control. For the sake of clarity, in road traffic accident claims we are not instructed by a Claimant’s insurer and their insurer may make decisions which effect their case but are again outside of our control. The speed at which a Defendant is travelling at is only one factor in a case and is not determinative of whether a case will succeed. Truth Legal is proud to represent personal injury clients under ‘No Win, No Fee’ agreements. Even in situations where unfortunately the claim does not succeed there is no monetary cost to our client, even though there is a monetary cost to our firm in terms of fees and disbursements which are borne by our firm. Due to the risks involved in litigation, our ‘No Win, No Fee’ agreements allow us to advise clients we cannot proceed with their claim if we consider prospects of success fall below less than 50%. A decision to terminate a ‘No Win, No Fee’ agreement is not taken lightly, as we also do not get paid for our time spent on the matter if we do not proceed. In such circumstances the client has received the benefit of legal advice without having to pay for it. When a No Win, No Fee agreement is terminated, it is of course open to the client to seek alternative legal advice. Although it may be the case that they may be required to pay for advice elsewhere. In light of the above, we do not feel that your review is an accurate reflection of the service we provided and nor does it cover all of the circumstances in which we have been instructed. Of 163 reviews on Review Solicitors, we average at 4.9/5 for the excellent service provided to our clients and currently we rank 1/13 locally for Personal Injury litigation. Should you wish to raise a complaint, please contact Katherine Swinn at k.swinn@truthlegal.com. Kindly note that from 1 April 2023, the time limits for referring a complaint to the Legal Ombudsman have been not later than one year from the date of the act or omission being complained about; or one year from the date when you should have realised that there was cause for complaint. We note that your concerns are in relation to services provided 18 months to two years ago, therefore it is likely the Legal Ombudsman may choose to not investigate any complaint you make due to it being out of time. However, the Legal Ombudsman has the ability to exercise discretion to extend the one year time limit for specific customers if, on the evidence, it is fair and reasonable to do so.
