Law Partners personal injury firm: Difference between revisions

From Road Traffic Injury
No edit summary
Line 12: Line 12:


[[Analysis of Law Partners itemized bill]] ''(incomplete)''. Analyzing bill according to supreme court cost assessment requirements is a good way to look at itemized bill as you may need to go there if negotiations fail. It will also give better understanding where you are. ''Media Wiki is not the best tool for this as you need to calculate sums and I do not know how to do it using Media Wiki, so I am using spread sheets instead.''
[[Analysis of Law Partners itemized bill]] ''(incomplete)''. Analyzing bill according to supreme court cost assessment requirements is a good way to look at itemized bill as you may need to go there if negotiations fail. It will also give better understanding where you are. ''Media Wiki is not the best tool for this as you need to calculate sums and I do not know how to do it using Media Wiki, so I am using spread sheets instead.''
== Review on Google Maps ==

Revision as of 07:08, 7 January 2024

I been a client of Law Partners personal injury firm from 2018-04 till 2020-06. After the injury itself this is the second thing, I wish that would not happen in my life. For me dealing with Law Partners was truly retraumatizing experience. It started path of the misery that I still cannot get out of

I was represented by solicitor Gillian Potts and barrister Ken Pryde, who technically is not a part a part of Law Partners, but according to himself works with them a lot.

The list of problems is very long. I have 2 complaints against them with Office of the NSW Legal Services Commissioner.

Law Partners bill

  1. Charge for all phone calls and emails twice: as part of other items and additionally individually just calls or correspondence, even if by the contract they were already covered by other items and should not be charged additionally (items: 1, 2, 3, 5).
  2. Charge for the tasks they have not performed, but simply asked the client to provide final information (item 4).
  3. I had a look at 34 general communication items: 7 have no correspondence, 6 were just notifications of appointments, for notification of one appointment with Dr Khan they charge 4 times. None of them should have been charged based on the contract.
  4. They made 2 mathematical errors and charge extra $3,210.01.

Analysis of Law Partners itemized bill (incomplete). Analyzing bill according to supreme court cost assessment requirements is a good way to look at itemized bill as you may need to go there if negotiations fail. It will also give better understanding where you are. Media Wiki is not the best tool for this as you need to calculate sums and I do not know how to do it using Media Wiki, so I am using spread sheets instead.

Review on Google Maps