header-logo header-logo

What’s in a name?

225404
Law firm mergers can lead to expensive cases of mistaken identity, write Clare Hughes-Williams & James Gardiner
  • Naming the wrong defendant in negligence claims—especially after law firm mergers—can lead to claims being struck out.
  • Leggett v AIG clarified that liability doesn’t automatically transfer to successor firms unless there’s a clear novation agreement.
  • Claimants must identify the correct liable entity before issuing proceedings, or risk losing valid claims entirely.

Pursuing a claim against the wrong defendant can often lead to an early strike-out of the claim. Mergers and changes to partnerships are common, and the newly merged entity will often trade under a similar name and be a successor practice from a professional indemnity perspective. But this does not mean that legal liability will rest with them. Some of the recent decisions relating to negligence claims against law firms have highlighted the risks and consequences for claimants who confuse insurance and legal liability.

When a claim form names the wrong defendant, the claim is

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

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers drives further growth in its UK immigration team with new partner Sophie Barrett-Brown

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal invests in next generation of legal talent as specialist litigation practice grows

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips continues momentum in London with arrival of Catrina Smith

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll