header-logo header-logo

Plain & simple

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

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll