Do these figures speak for themselves?

Any article with a headline that begins 'lawyers cash in...' elicits a sigh or a wry smile from most people. Everyone knows that lawyers always get paid in the end and Dickens showed us this in Bleak House - thank god for the BBC version.
To a large extent this story by Rosa Prince is absolutely right, legal fees have formed an ever larger part of the overall compensation bill for civil litigation since the Woolf reforms which removed personal injury claims from the legal aid process aside from one or two exceptions.
I suppose the difference now is we are heading towards election year so the Conservatives have 'revealed' these stats to the Telegraph.
I'm not niave enough to ask why the Telegraph would write a piece like this; their agenda is clear. But there is some ignorance of the wider picture which places this story into question and makes it easy to pick holes in so that's what I'm going to do.
The numbers are staggering and not without precedent; One in five claims against the NHS results in 'the lawyers' receiving more 'compensation' (fees) than the actual claimant. Yup, that's right and it's a fact across the wider personal injury system too; frequently insurers find themselves liable for costs that vastly exceed the damages awarded to claimants.
Nevertheless, this report pays John Major-sized lip service to the work being carried out to mitigate the problem. It chooses instead to report how this would never have happened under the tories, rather than pointing to the review of civil justice costs currently underway by Lord Justice Jackson, or the ongoing Ministry of Justice review of personal injury claims reform which will see a new fixed costs regime introduced for road traffic accidents.
The fact is lawyers are making hay while the sun shines and no one can blame them for that. The market enabling them to rack up these costs was instigated originally under the Major government anyway so that the burden of civil legal aid could be removed from the taxpayer. Pot/Kettle/Black?
These statistics are compelling and it's right to take issue with a system that is clearly under pressure from a cohort that knows how to extract cost while providing little value in return.
I have pointed out two major reviews/reforms that are currently underway and were ignored in this article. So what is the opposition's silver bullet? 'A fact finding process to avoid litigation'. I know we don't want to get bogged down by detail, but that's pathetic.

We're a global brand, get the celebrities out of here!!

As if they read my mind, the FT's editorial takes the matter of brand icons further in today's editorial http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c62164c6-ec0c-11de-8070-00144feab49a.html.
This piece elaborates on what was probably a press release in the first instance. Apparently, broker DeWitt Stern, is marketing 'reputation insurance' for brands to cover themselves against the indiscretions of their iconic 'partners' - eg Tiger/Accenture. It's an interesting topic, dressing up what is basically a glorified D&O product which would pay for the brand's legal expenses when they want to sue the celeb. Really the insurance would only be any good if Tiger had bought it himself as part of the contract though. Here's an example: 'we will pay you $Xm a year and you must as part of the deal purchase liability cover against any loss caused to us through a material breach of contract'.
On a similar note relating to weird insurance policies would be the fact Tiger Woods is now out of circulation on the golfing circuit and as such, a black hole will appear in the niche financial markets that underpin his win bonuses and so on. Every year, insurance is bought to pay for contingiencies like whether Roger Federer will win the grand slams or Lewis Hamilton the F1 title. The sponsors take huge gambles on whether to put these win bonuses in reserve against their balance sheet or buy an insurance policy which will pay out upon success. No Tiger, no policy, no tidy premiums for the brokers and insurers. Maybe Usain Bolt can fill the gap with another world record year... I guess the World Cup will help too - anyone want to insure the English FA? Surely they've bought a policy to cover our lot, it would be far too much wishful thinking to say that our 22-man squad is enough of a contender to warrant setting some cash aside to pay their bonuses when they trudge out on penalties in the quarter finals!
F1 hero hamilton's win bonuses insured - Postonline

Objective, constructive criticism

As a former news editor at Post Magazine, I like to think I can tell what's in a story so with this blog I hope to provide my perspective on what's in the business media.

Every week, I'll pick my favourite stories from a variety of sources and give a little taste of what I think they mean. Hopefully it will provide some food for thought.

Being so near to Christmas, the first thing I hear out of almost everyone's mouth is 'probably wait 'till the new year', and to an extent that could be true of the news. Planning Magazine lifted the frustration a little however with a front page picture story that sees property developing giant Peel Holdings promising to make the Wirral look like Singapore. A £4.5bn mixed-use scheme is in the offing and their ambition seems to be without limits. There will be enormous complexities and probably local objections involved in a plan like this, but it's remarkable to think that stuff like that could be done...

Away from property and planning, Post Magazine wins this week's getting away with it prize by handing over its view from the top column to Meerkat comparitor Alexandr Orlov. I once interviewed the insurance provider, MoreThan's Lucky the dog for an xmas story like this so there's the tip for you marketers out there; Get yourself a brand icon and you can sack all the talking heads at the firm. Who wouldn't rather have a chinwag with Churchill the dog instead of Paul Geddes?