All this talk of Libby being born into the world on 1 October 2011 made me think that some of you would like a Corey update.
So, here are some recent pictures of our gorgeous little boy, who will be 2 next month.
Corey
Reply
Libby Charlotte Dorcas Wilks
Rachel and I are absolutely delighted to announce the birth of our daughter, Libby Charlotte Dorcas Wilks, who was born on 1 October 2011 at 9.16am, weighing 6lbs 15oz and measuring 55cm.
I can’t tell you how over the moon I am to have a beautiful daughter to make 2point4 children; one of each gender. If (and I mean *IF*) we do go on to have a third child, I’ll especially be looking forward to having a surprise, and whether our third is a boy or girl, s/he will be a bonus to an already very happy family of four!
The lawyers trying to give deaf people a hearing
I thought you might like to have a read of this article, to which I provide some comments.
The lawyers trying to give deaf people a hearing | Law | guardian.co.uk.
I think it’s been very well written and does explain the situation Deaf people face when trying to access legal advice services.
Reflection
Yes I know. I had a blogging spurt recently and then it just went nowhere and I ain’t posted for a few weeks.
There are two reasons for my apparent quietness.
Firstly, Rachel, Corey, Bump and I upped sticks from our 3-bedroom terraced house in Oakdale to a 4-bedroom new-build detached house in Abercarn.
Moving house is something I would not want to repeat. While the move in itself went well, it was a mammoth task as it took 5 trips in a Transit-sized van as well as 4 cars making several trips to move all our stuff, taking up a huge chunk of a day and an hour or so the next.
Needless to say, we love our new home and have been busy ever since putting our stamp on it. It’s so lovely to have the extra room.
The second reason is a shame. Following my post “Are there any Deaf left?”, someone took it upon themselves to contact my employer to complain about some of my comments.
Now, in hindsight I do understand that some of my comments in that post are somewhat controversial and that given my senior management post within RAD, I should have been more mindful of any implications this would have on RAD’s work and in particular the work of my colleagues on the senior management team. Lesson learnt.
What I was rather dismayed about was the fact that my comments about hard of hearing were seen as “discriminatory” and that hard of hearing people should think twice about coming to RAD/me for legal advice. I believe the two things (my views on hard of hearing people belonging to the Deaf community / their right to receive free legal advice) are completely separate. I have and do provide many hard of hearing individuals with legal advice, and have no qualms in doing so. This was rather a wake up call for me, and something I won’t be in a hurry to repeat, given my exposure to the Deaf community and the fact that hard of hearing people can access my services.
It’s a shame that my “voice” has to be stifled somewhat, but you know what? There’s more important things to concern myself with. There’s a lot more I can talk about than not without compromising my position as a senior manager and as a solicitor.
Let’s see what drivel I can come up with, eh? 
Settling cases
Last month I advised a client to settle his case for an undisclosed sum. I believe he made the right decision. We went on to sign the COT3 agreement and the sum was paid to my client.
Unfortunately, my client started to get cold feet. He was in two minds about whether he’d made the right decision to settle rather than proceeding to a Tribunal hearing. To be honest, I can understand why. Advising clients through settlement negotiations is difficult, as it relies on gut instinct i.e. mine.
What I do advise clients is this.
The starting point for negotiations is usually the Schedule of Loss, which is a document that sets out financial losses and compensation for discrimination. For unfair dismissal claims, it is usually made up of a ‘basic award’, calculated according to age and length of service at the date of dismissal, capped at a statutory maximum of currently £400 per week, and a ‘compensatory award’ made up of ‘loss of statutory rights’ and ‘loss of earnings’. ‘Loss of statutory rights’ is an amount to compensate for loss of certain statutory rights accrued with the employer, e.g. the right not to be unfairly dismissed; this is normally paid at £250. An award for ‘loss of earnings’ can be made to compensate actual net loss of earnings from the date of dismissal to the date of the Tribunal hearing.
Compensation can be awarded for injury to feelings for the discrimination suffered. How this is calculated is based on a case called Vento, which established guidelines in how to put a value on discrimination claims. There are three bands: up to £8,000, from £8,000 to £18,000, and from £18,000 to £28,000. The band each individual case is placed in depends very much on the experience of the solicitor involved in the case, and will depend on the severity of the act of discrimination and how often it occurred i.e. a one-off act is likely to attract less compensation than a series of acts over a long period of time.
Once the total value of the Schedule of Loss is calculated, this is usually the maximum figure that can be used as a starting point for settlement negotiations. Claimants are expected to mitigate their losses as far as possible i.e. get another job within a reasonable time frame as opposed to resting on their laurels in anticipation of compensation, and any welfare benefits (taxable ones such as Jobseekers Allowance or Employment & Support Allowance) claimed or earnings from a new job will have to be deducted from the total.
However, while a Schedule of Loss can be useful when it comes to settlement negotiations, it’s not the be all and end all. The respondent will have their own view on what compensation claimants are likely to get if they succeed with their claim at Tribunal, and this is more likely than not going to be a lower figure than claimed. In particular, they will have their own ideas as to what claimants could potentially get for injury to feelings if the claim is successful.
There is also the issue of merit. Does the claim have a reasonable prospect of success? If so, what is the Tribunal likely to award the claimant? If the claim has little merit, then the claimant can expect to receive no compensation or very little compensation. There is a particular risk if a lower figure is awarded during settlement negotiations than is awarded by the Tribunal; a Tribunal award could be reduced on this basis or a costs application granted because a claimant forced the respondent to go all the way to the Tribunal hearing when it would have clearly been more sensible to settle in the first place.
On top of that, we have what is known as “litigation risk”. This means basically what each party is prepared to compromise with in order to eliminate the risks associated with going ahead to Tribunal i.e. if the claimant wins, will the compensation awarded be more or less than the figures used in settlement negotiations/the Schedule of Loss? If the claimant loses, how much are they likely to have to pay in legal fees if the respondent makes a costs application? It is usually because of this risk that both parties have to compromise how much they want to settle for.
So, settlement negotiations are not easy to explain to clients. Ultimately, there has to be a degree of trust in the solicitor to be able to settle cases successfully. This proves the point that it is important for solicitors to build up confidence and trust in their clients, and any breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship can lead to difficulties when trying to settle cases.