PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE, ADVOCACY, IMMUNITY OF SOLICITORS FROM ACTION, LEGAL PROFESSION, PUBLIC POLICY, ABUSE OF PROCESS
Facts
Mr Simons alleged that his solicitors had allowed a building dispute to become unnecessarily protracted and expensive instead of advising him to settle. Mr Barratt alleged that his solicitors had failed to advise him properly on the value of the matrimonial home and on how to divide the sale proceeds. Mrs Harris alleged that she had been negligently advised to accept an inadequate settlement of her maintenance claim. In all cases, the judges at first instance concluded that the solicitors enjoyed immunity from suit and struck out the claims against them as an abuse of process of the court. The Court of Appeal reversed this decision. The defendants appealed to the House of Lords.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
Issues
Should advocates retain immunity from negligence claims arising from their conduct of proceedings and closely connected work?
Decision/Outcome
The House of Lords dismissed all three appeals, allowing the negligence claims to proceed. It did not decide whether any of the solicitors had in fact acted negligently.
(1) Overruling Rondel v Worsley [1969] 1 AC 191, in light of the changes in the law of negligence, the functioning of the legal profession, the administration of justice and public perceptions, the House unanimously removed the immunity for civil cases. A majority also concluded that it should end for criminal cases.
(2) The judges distinguished errors of judgment from negligence and considered the courts able to dispose of unmeritorious claims.
(3) The removal of immunity did not displace the court’s power to prevent abuse of process. A claim that effectively seeks to reopen a standing conviction or another concluded decision can still be barred as a collateral attack.
Reported citations: [2002] 1 AC 615, [2000] 3 WLR 543, [2000] 3 All ER 673, [2000] BLR 407, [2000] ECC 487, [2000] 2 FLR 545, [2000] 2 FCR 673, [2000] Fam Law 806
