Three Shifts in Clinical Negligence: What’s Working Now
By Alex Kenny
For many firms, clinical negligence work has traditionally come through personal recommendation.
In that situation, a level of trust is already there. Clients are more patient. Decisions can take a little longer.
As firms scale, whether through partners or indeed their own firm’s marketing efforts, that dynamic changes and what works needs to change with it.
Clients behave differently. Expectations shift. What works in a recommendation-led model doesn’t always carry across.
At Blume, we currently service around 40 specialist clinical negligence law firms. So, we get to see what’s working, and what isn’t, and how law firms are adapting their processes as they scale.
Three shifts stand out.
1. Speed to decision matters more than ever
The firms that seem to perform best are the firms that are backing their lawyers in making early judgement calls on case sign-up.
Where decisions are delayed, whether through internal processes or waiting for a weekly (or even fortnightly) case clinic, clients are left waiting at a point where things are already uncertain.
That delay matters.
It’s been known for a long time that in personal injury cases, it's ‘fastest finger first’ to sign a client before someone else. Historically, clinical negligence has allowed for more time. That gap is closing. Clients are expecting quicker responses and clearer direction.
If it’s not a personal recommendation, the chances are a client has contacted more than one firm. Speed to decision becomes a differentiator.
The firms that move early and provide their clients with clarity are more likely to be the ones that secure the case.
2. Reducing the burden on the client
Firms are definitely moving away from asking clients to do significant upfront work before a case is taken on.
In the past, it was more common to ask individuals to go through a complaints process, or obtain their own medical records, before a case was taken on and a Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA) was in place.
That approach still happens but is now far less common.
In practice, it slows things down and adds uncertainty at a point where clients are already dealing with difficult circumstances.
It also puts responsibility on the individual to navigate complex processes without support, often at the worst possible time.
There is also less clarity on costs from a client perspective when there is no CFA in place. Even where firms have no intention of charging for the advice provided, that isn’t always understood by the injured patient. We know that cost is one of their biggest worries at this time.
Firms that engage in a CFA up front and take on more of that early work themselves tend to see stronger engagement and better retention.
3. Moving away from perfection at the outset
Another shift is how firms approach early-stage risk assessment.
Rather than looking for a fully formed case at the outset, many are taking a more pragmatic approach. Initial assessment is lighter touch, with a focus on progressing cases to the point where medical records can be obtained quickly.
More detailed scrutiny then happens post-records, when there is a clearer factual foundation.
This is where case clinics, second opinions and deeper analysis tend to add the most value, when decisions, discussions and opinions are based on evidence rather than recollection.
Firms adopting this approach often tell us that they find cases that might previously have been screened out too early.
There is an obvious trade-off though. Some cases that don’t ultimately proceed will still incur the cost of the work involved in obtaining records.
That process is becoming more efficient, supported by stronger After the Event (ATE) Insurance arrangements (backed by long-term positive win rates), improved operational processes, strong pagination partners operating in the market and increasing use of technology and AI.
The focus for many firms now is on reaching the records stage as quickly and cost-effectively as possible, which benefits both firms and clients.
What’s working now
All of this reflects a shift in how the start of a clinical negligence claim is handled.
As sources of work change, so do client expectations.
Speed, clarity and reducing friction at the outset matter more, both for conversion and for overall client experience.
Firms that adapt to this are better placed to scale through marketing, while maintaining quality in the cases they take forward.
At Blume, this thinking sits behind Patient Claim Line, a service designed to support individuals at the very start of their journey, bringing structure and clarity before connecting them with the right specialist clinical negligence firm.
It’s a simple idea, but one that’s making a real difference.
For those attending the SCIL Conference and Exhibition Day, Alex Kenny will be sharing more on this during his session from 9.45am to 10.05am.
If you’d like to continue the conversation, you can also reach the team at enquiries@blumegroup.co.uk.