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: 57
  • 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

  • Danish professional football – and the sports betting that is such a part of the modern game now – was thrown into disarray recently when many Danish players, including many who had performed so well at this year’s World Cup in Russia such as Christian Eriksen and Kasper Schmeichel, refused to sign a new contract governing image and commercial rights with the Danish Football Association (DBU). As well as resulting in the DBU taking extraordinary steps in calling up lower league and ‘futsal’ players to bolster the national squad ahead of their game against Slovakia, bookmakers providing odds for the game had to drastically re-think their pricing. For the game against Slovakia, a friendly, Denmark had originally been favourites at 6/4; however, once news of the contract dispute became known and the impact this would have on the team to play... Read More

  • Despite the settlement of a claim a year ago, shareholders are still waiting to receive compensation from Royal Bank of Scotland RBS. The group action claim was bought by thousands of RBS shareholders against RBS and four of its former directors, including Fred Goodwin. The legal action, the early settlement of which meant that the disgraced Goodwin would not have to give evidence in Court, alleged that the shareholders had been misled over the banks financial position when it launched a rights issued worth £12bn in 2008. The claim was settled prior to the trial commencing in May 2017, with the shareholders being awarded 82 pence per share, payable by RBS. Delays in the shareholder verification process has resulted in some investors not yet receiving compensation, although some institutional investors have received the agreed payments. One of the main claimants listed in... Read More

  • 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... Read More