header-logo header-logo

28 February 2014 / Alison Padfield
Issue: 7596 / Categories: Features , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Hobson’s choice?

web_padfield

Alison Padfield considers the limits on the freedom to choose a lawyer

The freedom to choose a lawyer under a policy of before the event (BTE) legal expenses insurance is expressly set out in reg 6 of the Insurance Companies (Legal Expenses Insurance) Regulations 1990 (SI 1990/1159). The right is to choose a lawyer “to defend, represent or serve the interests of the insured in any inquiry or proceedings” (reg 6(1)), and there is also a right to do so at an earlier stage if a conflict of interest arises between the insurer and the insured (reg 6(2)). The regulations implement Directive 87/344/EEC, and reg 6, which requires the freedom to be expressly set out in the policy of legal expenses insurance, essentially reproduces the wording of Art 4 of the directive. Some aspects of the freedom have been considered in a series of recent cases, but important issues remain unresolved.

Does the freedom provide effective protection?

The freedom is to choose a lawyer in connection with “proceedings”. Most insureds would no doubt anticipate that

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll