Latest by Aimee Talbot
Lawyers Covered - June 2022
Welcome to the latest edition of our Lawyers Liability & Regulatory Update, in which we look back over the last month at key developments affecting lawyers and the professional risks they face.
Read moreLawyers Covered - May 2022
Welcome to the latest edition of our Lawyers Liability & Regulatory Update, in which we look back over the last month at key developments affecting lawyers and the professional risks they face.
Read moreConstruction of the insuring clause in solicitors’ MTC compliant policy considered in law firm funder’s claim
On 3 February 2022 Mr Justice Butcher handed down judgment in Doorway Capital Ltd v American International Group Ltd1, granting reverse summary judgment in favour of the insurer defendant.
Read moreRelief from sanction: claimant being forced to pursue his solicitors for negligence is not desirable
A recent High Court decision demonstrates a common-sense, realistic approach to relief from sanctions. Solicitors might have become used to judges, when striking claims out, reassuring the claimant that they can always sue their solicitors for negligence. In a welcome judgment, Mr Justice Fancourt reversed a decision to refuse relief from sanction.
Read moreJudicial guidance on listing of hearings remotely
Senior judges have issued guidance to the judiciary on listing hearings in light of the current coronavirus situation. This gives litigants some clues as to how the court will approach upcoming hearings.
Read moreBossing the Rules: StaRs Rule 1.4: “you do not mislead anyone”
The Solicitors’ Practice Rules 1990 (“SPR”) did not contain any express prohibition on misleading anyone; although, depending on the circumstances, such conduct was likely to have contravened the basic principles. Like today’s principles, these required solicitors not to do anything in the course of practising as a solicitor (or permit anyone to do anything on their behalf) which compromises or impairs (or is likely to compromise or impair) the good repute of the solicitor or the profession or the solicitor’s duty to the court.
Read moreBossing the rules
Watch out for RPC's new blog mini-series on the SRA Standards and Regulations 2019.
Read moreCosts proportionality: answers at last?
Practitioners have been waiting six years for authoritative guidance on how the new post-April 2013 proportionality test applies in the hope that we will be better able to predict the outcome of costs assessment and, therefore, better equipped to advise our clients. A recent Court of Appeal decision has been described as delivering this; however, it raises a number of new issues which are sure to give rise to further satellite litigation. As such, proportionality remains the great unknown.
Read moreJudge makes alarming comments about validity of standstill agreements in Inheritance Act claims
In a recent judgment, the High Court has cast doubt on the extent to which the court will recognise standstill agreements in applications under the Inheritance (Provision for Family & Dependents) Act 1975.
Read moreSection 14A, don't delay!
The Court of Appeal has upheld a judge's decision to deal summarily with a dispute as to the claimant's date of knowledge under s14a Limitation Act 1980. The judgment also contains a handy summary of the key law in the area.
Read moreCourt refuses s61 relief in claim by buyer against seller's solicitors
In a decision handed down earlier this month, the High Court in Purrunsing -v- (1) A'Court & Co. (a firm); (2) House Owners Conveyancers Limited [2016] EWHC 789 refused relief under section 61 Trustee Act 1925 to a firm of solicitors and a firm of licensed conveyancers who acted in the sale of a property by a fraudster.
Read moreHere today, gone tomorrow – Calderbank offers and costs protection
A recent case highlights a mistake to avoid when trying to obtain costs protection from Calderbank offers.
Read moreSection 14A: Equity aids the vigilant!
The recent Court of Appeal case of Chinnock –v- Veale Wasbrough [2015] EWCA Civ 441 is a stark reminder to potential claimants to seek a second opinion if they are dissatisfied with their legal advice, or risk the consequences.
Read moreOxford solicitor receives biggest SDT fine yet
Former solicitor Nigel Harvie has been ordered to pay £305,000 by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ("SDT") – the biggest fine (by a long way) ever imposed by the tribunal.
Read more