Call us today0800 160 1298
 
 

Advantage Litigation

Welcome to Advantage Litigation Services. We provide affordable access to commercial litigation.

  • Home
    Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.
  • Categories
    Categories Displays a list of categories from this blog.
  • Tags
    Tags Displays a list of tags that have been used in the blog.
  • Bloggers
    Bloggers Search for your favorite blogger from this site.
  • Team Blogs
    Team Blogs Find your favorite team blogs here.
  • Login
    Login Login form

Solicitor Negligence Claims and Expert Evidence

Posted by on in Uncategorized
  • Font size: Larger Smaller
  • Hits: 240
  • Subscribe to this entry
  • Print

A recent judgment in a claim for solicitor’s professional negligence has highlighted the importance of appropriate expert evidence to establish whether and how any such negligence can be attributed.

The claim in question alleged negligence by well-respected law firm Leigh Day in how it represented its client (a family) at an inquest. The claim was dismissed by Mrs Justice Andrews, the salient points in the judgement appearing in paragraphs 8 & 9, where the judge says:

It is not enough to show that a different solicitor may have taken a different view or a different course, let alone that the client felt that the solicitor could have done more. That is why the court will rarely hold a professional to be in breach of duty in the absence of assistance from a suitably qualified expert who can explain why in his or her opinion the acts or omissions complained of fell below the standard of professional competence that would have been expected in those circumstances. No expert evidence was called in this case.
Of course, not every case of professional negligence requires expert evidence to support it, and there may be cases where the breach of duty is obvious, for example where it is possible to demonstrate, by reference to established authority, that the wrong legal advice was given, or where the solicitor fails to issue proceedings within the limitation period that would otherwise have had a realistic prospect of success. However, this is not such a case."

Use of expert evidence is pretty much a pre-requisite in negligence claims involving almost any other profession, from architects and builders though to accounts and financial advisors. For claims against solicitors and lawyers however, specific principles are generally applied, as summarised in Jackson & Powell. Simply put, courts and judges do not want experts to tell them what the law is, or to describe what they would have done if they had been bringing the original action. A good example of this can be found in Bown v Gould & Swayne [1996], where Millett LJ made the following robust comments about the expert evidence provided in a professional negligence claim against a conveyancer:

If it is necessary to assist the judge to understand the proper machinery for the deduction and investigation of title, the proper way to do it is to cite the textbooks such as Emmett, Farrand, Williams and Dart, if necessary supplemented by Law Society opinions. In fact, this is a straightforward case in which I doubt that even such references would be necessary. I deplore the suggestion that it is either helpful or necessary to call evidence from high street solicitors whose individual practices may be eccentric and differ and whose practice certainly does not make the law of the land."


So, the use of expert evidence in actions against solicitors and lawyers is a complex area. Whilst simply obtaining evidence of what a different lawyer would have done is relatively simple, it would not be admissible in court, whilst evidence of what may constitute ‘standard legal practice’ may be viable for some claim types (eg: conveyancing) but not for others.

If you are thinking about taking legal action against another individual or company but are worried about the costs involved, Advantage Litigation Services have the skills and expertise to help you find a way of funding commercial litigation without risking your personal finances or those of your business. Click here to contact us today or call 0800 160 1298 to see how we can help.

Get in touch

  1. Your Name(*)
    Please let us know your name.
  2. Your Email(*)
    Please let us know your email address.
  3. Company Name(*)
    Please write a subject for your message.
  4. Your Phone Number
    Invalid Input
  5. Message(*)
    Please let us know your message.
  6. Anti-Spam, please enter the characters shown
    Anti-Spam, please enter the characters shown
    Invalid Input

Latest News

  • Woody Allen, a Hollywood veteran whose career encompasses acting, directing, writing and comedy, is taking legal action against internet giant Amazon after the controversial director’s latest film, ‘A Rainy Day in New York’, was shelved following the emergence of new abuse allegations. The film, a romantic comedy starring Selena Gomez and Jude Law, was finished in 2017 but the re-emergence of sex-abuse allegations in the wake of the #me too movement has resulted in Amazon being unwilling to authorise its release, apparently indefinitely. The most recent abuse claims by Allen’s daughter Dylan Farrow have been strongly denied by the ‘Annie Hall’ star. Official investigation into the claims has also resulted in a lack of evidence, and consequently no action has been taken against. Alleging that Amazon Studios has broken a four-film contract originally signed in 2016, Allen is now seeking $68m in... Read More

  • Samuel Tak Lee, the single largest shareholder of London based and FTSE 250 listed property developer Shaftesbury, is ramping up his dispute with the Shaftesbury board, making it clear his intention to vote against its directors at their forthcoming AGM. Mr Lee, who has a 26% shareholding in the successful property development company, has gone on record in indicating that he will vote against any resolutions that would result in the issue of new shares as he believes that previous fundraising has damaged shareholder value. Mr Lee, a Hong Kong billionaire property mogul and landlord now based in London, has amassed a large property empire including the 14 acre Langham Estate in London’s exclusive Fitzrovia. He has also indicated that he will also vote against the reappointment of Shaftesbury’s Chairman, CEO & CFO and oppose director pay packages. Shaftesbury, which owns large numbers... Read More

  • Having de-listed from the Australian Stock Exchange and joined AIM last month, Australian litigation funder Litigation Capital Management Limited (LCM) is a new name in the UK’s burgeoning third party litigation funding market. The move has seen LCM raise £20m from the AIM listing, resulting in a market capitalisation on admission of circa £56m. LCM’s new London office has been established based on a six-strong team from Chancery Capital, led by well-respected litigation funding expert Nick Rowles-Davies. Rowles-Davis confirmed that their focus will remain on developing direct ‘funder to client’ relationships, rather than the usual litigation funding model of only dealing via solicitors and law firms. Commenting on Litigation Futures, Rowles-Davis said: We don’t just sit there waiting for lawyers to come to us,” he said. “It puts us in different position in chain – we’re not just service providers…it leads to a... Read More