Lawyers seizing lion's share of payouts in NHS negligence cases In one case, revealed through a Freedom of Information request, the family of a dead patient, who had acquired an infection in hospital while being treated for advanced stage cancer, received £2,000 in damages. Their solicitors were paid £61,268 in legal fees by the NHS. The cost to the health service in defending the claim came to £31,541, bringing the total legal bill to more than £92,000. In a third case, the NHS paid damages of £1,000, but the claimant lawyers" costs came to £21,500. The original bill from the lawyers, before negotiation, was £31,300. The defence costs came to £3,050. In a fourth case, damages came to £3,750, defence costs came to £10,665 but the claimant's lawyers" costs came to £76,000. They originally submitted a bill of £96,200. The Ministry of Justice said the figures were "extraordinary," but that costs would come down under reforms to no-win no-fee rules under the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act. The Act, which comes into force next April, caps "success fees" that lawyers can claim from losing defendants. In the four cases cited, the success fee was 100 per cent of the original bill. But Steve Barclay, a Conservative MP who sits on the public accounts committee, warned: "Lawyers will still have an incentive to increase the length of cases to push up costs. One way in which they may do this is trying to get cases heard in more senior courts. Paying the legal bills of people who sued the health service cost £196 million last year. Defence bills came to £61 million. Just over £500million was paid in damages. Claims have doubled in four years to 8,600 a year and the business has become so lucrative that firms have entered the market, encouraging people to sue. Figures show that about a third of claims, 2,900, last year proved unsuccessful but defending them cost £10.8 million. A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: "Taxpayers expect that the system should compensate claimants properly and reward their lawyers appropriately, not liberally."