header-logo header-logo

31 May 2012 / Steven O'Sullivan
Issue: 7516 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Plain & simple

Make it clear to your client what you won’t do for them, advises Steven O’Sullivan

What have you been instructed to do by your client? A simple question: perhaps a better one is what have you not been instructed to do? This question often gives headaches to those of us dealing with claims against solicitors. I have quite a few claims where there is a serious issue about what the solicitor has or has not undertaken to do. To refine the question further: what did your client reasonably believe you had been instructed to do?

Common problems

Here are a few examples of the problem. Where the solicitor is acting on a commercial deal, who is taking charge of the tax planning? When it turns out that the agreement was not particularly tax efficient, is the client going to find you a target for blame or will the evidence show that this was outside your retainer? Where a client purchases property where some kind of development or change of use is envisaged, who is taking charge of the ancillary planning issues? Imagine you

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll