MMR vaccine: lawyers sued for pursuing claim based on link to autism

A man is suing his former legal team for pursuing "hopeless claims" based on flawed research into the MMR vaccine, it has emerged.

Matthew McCafferty, who was diagnosed with autism three years after receiving the vaccine, is taking legal action over a legal claim that he says had no chance of succeeding, according to a report in the Times.

He is suing the lawyers Hodge Jones & Allen for their "unjust enrichment as officers of the court by litigating a hopeless claim funded by legal aid by which you profited".

More than 1,000 families were involved in a class action that was dropped in 2003 after research by Andrew Wakefield on the link between autism and the MMR vaccine was discredited. He was later struck off as a doctor for offences relating to dishonesty and failing to act in the best interests of vulnerable child patients.

The lengthy group action cost an estimated £15m in legal aid. Michael Shaw, McCafferty's solicitor, said his claim was the first, but his firm had been in contact with several former MMR vaccine litigants who it believed were entitled to compensation from former lawyers.

"The original MMR vaccine litigation was supposed to be worth billions in compensation, not mere millions, but it cost millions in legal aid," Shaw told the Times. "There was also a huge personal cost for the families involved – all the raised hopes and expectations, driven by the irresponsible media frenzy based on an unsubstantiated health scare and junk science. Not one penny in compensation was obtained for any child. The families are now just beginning to recover and take stock. They are scrutinising the actions of their former lawyers and medical advisers."

Shaw's solicitor argues that Hodge Jones & Allen negligently handled McCafferty's claim and missed the time limit for filing a claim, which they say was 10 years from the date of supply of the vaccine from the manufacturers.

McCafferty, 23, from Falkirk, central Scotland, is seeking damages to "include compensation, distress, expense and inconvenience of engaging in hopeless litigation".

Hodge Jones & Allen denies negligence either in the timing of the issuing of proceedings or in proceeding on the available evidence. The law firm said: "The suggestion that Hodge Jones & Allen would knowingly run a hopeless case is nonsense and completely contrary to our principles and ethics ... To suggest that we took legal aid funds to investigate the case knowing it was hopeless in 1998 and 1999 is completely untrue. At the time, the merits of the case were not clear. A link between the vaccine and autism was strongly asserted by the families and Dr Wakefield and in view of the large number of cases and the seriousness of the condition, it was right for investigations to be carried out. The legal aid board were happy to fund these investigations."

Share on Facebook