A British judge has slashed the costs of a law firm acting for hundreds of women claiming to have been harmed by vaginal mesh implant surgery.
Judge Jennifer James in the Senior Courts Costs Office has questioned Fortitude Law’s claims about how successful it was in the litigation. Fortitude Law (Sussex) was shut in May by the UK's Solicitors Regulation Authority as there was “reason to suspect dishonesty” on the part of owner Darren Hanison, reports Legal Futures.
Campaign group Sling the Mesh said Hanison was representing many of its members and that the move had left them “understandably angry and distraught”.
James ruling on preliminary issues in the detailed assessment was handed down in June – after a hearing that took place before the firm was closed – but was only published last week.
She said the question of whether Fortitude Law, which acted for hundreds of claimants, had engaged in litigation misconduct “has yet to be aired let alone decided”.
But her decision in HD v Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust – one of six associated cases – would not have augured well for the firm.
At one point, she cited the firm’s website as stating: “Fortitude Law has already helped, and is currently helping, many UK women to secure compensation of £100 000 or more in respect of negligent mesh implantation surgery – and our unique approach means the individuals we act for receive compensation from the insurance which the private medical consultants, private hospitals and NHS trusts are required to have in place.”
The judge said: “It is not clear what ‘unique approach’ Fortitude Law is claiming, but I have not seen a single claim that realised even half of £100 000, despite claims pitched well in excess of that sum and (in the case of HL) in excess of three quarters of a million pounds…” HL’s case settled for £30 000.
A claims-handling agreement governed what needed to be in letters of claims in vaginal mesh cases, but the judge said she had “never seen professionally-drafted letters of claim like the ones produced by Fortitude Law”.
There was “unnecessarily and unreasonably prolix medical background” in each one as well as excessive citations from leading authorities.
“The overwhelming impression is that Fortitude Law has drafted up a precedent section under each heading and that the fee-earners tasked with drafting the letters of claim have had access to those precedent sections.
“Some have been tailored to a considerable extent, e.g, the medical histories (but against a background of many hours spent on sorting and indexing the medical records that should not have taken a great deal of time). Others appear to be identical… across all six letters.”
In the case of HD, the judge said she could not see that the letter of claim could have “taken anything like” the 62 hours claimed.
She allowed 15 and reduced the 66 hours claimed for letters of response to 10.
“I do not find the schedules to have been drafted systematically or with the care and attention to be expected of a boutique clinical negligence firm specialising in vaginal mesh claims – frankly, the six I have seen are all over the place.
“I am in considerable doubt as to the times claimed for these schedules.. Much time was thrown away on calculations based on the wrong premises, plus arithmetical errors and other oversights.”
In relation to future medical treatment, James said “it appears that Fortitude Law have simply overlooked” some potentially substantial claims.
She was also critical of Fortitude’s main medical expert, Dr Wael Agur, finding “so much common material” across the “many” reports he produced. This meant the fee charged for each one was too high.
Of the 33 pages in his report on HD, 17 were exactly the same as in the other reports. “The details of his qualifications and experience are about as long as the entire report (in fact, given the format, probably longer if one were to undertake a word count on them),” she said.
Mesh court case
See more from MedicalBrief archives:
Some vaginal mesh victims sucked into money-making litigation
More SA women join vaginal mesh legal suit as J&J suffers US defeat
SA vaginal mesh class action following landmark judgment