Does the uplift fee reflect the risk?

Many law firms automatically apply a 25% increase in fees as an uplift fee. This is difficult to understand, as part of the reason for allowing uplift fees is to compensate the lawyer for the risk that a case will not be successful. The risk however varies from case to case and the uplift fee you are to pay ought to reflect the actual risk in your case.

In a common law claim for damages for a work injury, there are three distinct areas of risk. The first area of risk is in the chance of obtaining serious injury certification, the second is in proving negligence and the third is in proving loss. In some cases, the risk is spread across all areas in others the risk may be substantially in only one of the three areas. In some cases, there may be very little risk at all.

The best way to illustrate this is with an example. If for example a worker had suffered an amputation of an arm, the employer had been convicted of a safety law breach then there would be little risk in the case. Automatically applying a 25% uplift fee would be extremely unfair. Another case, for example, may involve a back injury where there is very clear loss and negligence but there may be a real risk that the worker will not receive a serious injury certificate. In this circumstance and uplift fee of 25% may be reasonable BUT is it fair that if the worker receives the certificate that the rest of the case is conducted on the same basis once that risk is removed? At WORKFORCE LEGAL, we do not think it is.

At WORKFORCE LEGAL, the uplift will always be reasonably proportionate to the actual risk.