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

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

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
back-to-top-scroll