Although it can be very difficult to proceed with a professional negligence claim against a solicitor, barrister or lawyer, it is worth bearing in mind that, despite being formidable opponents in a dispute, sensible legal professionals will also understand that when the odds are not in their favour, it is advantageous to reach early and amicable settlement without making recourse to the courts. As such, when faced with the prospect of lengthy and expensive litigation as well as – crucially – damage to reputation, a legal firm can, with the right prompting, be persuaded to settle a case at the early stage. Continue reading →

One possible reason for pursuing a professional negligence claim against a lawyer is a failure to provide adequate advice regarding funding options; for example, conditional fee arrangements or After the Event Insurance (ATE). Continue reading →

In the event that you believe you have strong grounds for pursuing a claim for professional negligence, whether it is against a lawyer, barrister, architect, accountant, surveyor, valuer, or other professional, you may wish to represent the claim yourself, without instructing a lawyer. Below are listed some of the reasons a claimant might decide to take this course of action. Continue reading →

Being the victim of professional negligence can be frustrating and inconvenient – however, unless the negligence you have suffered causes you to sustain significant financial loss, it is unlikely that it will be advisable to instruct a professional negligence solicitor to proceed with a claim. Continue reading →

The extent to which a solicitor can be said to owe a client a duty of care is very difficult for the layperson to quantify and any determination of this question will invariably necessitate the involvement of a professional negligence lawyer. However, it is fair to say that as a general rule, the frame of a solicitor’s duties are defined by the terms of instruction he receives from his client, which should be clearly laid out as part of the fee (retainer). Continue reading →

Making a negligence claim against a lawyer or solicitor for negligent legal advice can seem an incredibly daunting prospect, not least because the people you will be seeking to claim against are, by profession, adept at using the law to their advantage. Continue reading →

There are so many advisers out there in what can seem a bafflingly eclectic market. Of course, competition is a good thing, but wherever there is choice, there is the potential to make the wrong decision. So, who should you turn to for financial advice?

The Law Society is clear in its directives regarding financial advisors: only ever choose those who are independent.

One reason for this unambiguous stance is the professional body’s concern that by recommending other types of advisor, for example restricted, tied or multi-tied advisors, solicitors could make themselves vulnerable to financial advice negligence claims.

Many solicitors have in-house specialists for advising or recommending particular courses of action. As such, firms frequently see individuals in need of advice and direction on matters such as tax planning, property investment, and pension schemes.

The official position of the Solicitors Regulation Authority is that because many lawyers may not fully comprehend the different status of various types of advisor, its members should not seek to differentiate between “restricted” and “independent” advisors when making recommendations to clients – a position which contrasts with its former stance of exclusively recommending independent advisors.

The Law Society believes that the SRA’s current position is misguided. It said, “The Law Society has taken the unprecedented step of urging the profession not to follow the SRA’s new rules on recommending financial advisers to clients, warning that it could expose solicitors to negligence claims.

“We urge members to only recommend independent financial advisers (IFAs) to clients.

“The provision of independent financial advice has historically been one of the fundamental tenets of the profession. As such we would urge solicitors to disregard the liberalisation of the Handbook in this area and continue to only recommend IFAs.”

Professional negligence specialists in London and Brighton

Healys LLP is an independent law firm offering specialist services to clients looking to recover compensation following the negligent or substandard services of a professional.

Our financial advice negligence claims teams work from our London and Brighton offices to provide clarity and direction, and, wherever possible, early and non-contentious settlement of a dispute. Contact us today for more information.

Misrepresentation is a fundamental breach of the professional-client relationship. If you have suffered financial loss after being misrepresented as to the services provided by a professional, whether an accountant, financial adviser, lawyer, architect, builder or other, it may be possible to make a claim for negligent misrepresentation.

Typically, there are three types of claim that can be made in these circumstances. These are listed below.

Innocent misrepresentation

Even if you enter into a relationship with a professional who makes misstatements that he or she at the time believes to be true it may still be possible to pursue a claim for negligent misrepresentation.

If you become aware of this misstatement before the contract takes effect, you are within your rights to cancel it. However, in the event that the contract cannot be cancelled, there is scope within the Misrepresentation Act 1967 for clients to claim damages for any losses they incur.

One case relevant to this area of law is Cleaver and another v Schyde Investments Limited [2001] EWCA Civ 929. In this case the Court of Appeal upheld the County Court decision that a buyer who had agreed to purchase land with development potential was entitled to rescind the contract on the basis of the seller’s innocent misrepresentation in failing to provide notification of a significant restriction on the promised development potential.

Negligent misrepresentation

Just as with cases of innocent misrepresentation, cases of negligent misrepresentation have grounds under the terms of the Misrepresentation Act 1967. Negligent misrepresentation may be deemed to have occurred where a professional makes a statement in which prima facie is true but might be altered by technical details at another level. If it can be proven that the professional should have known this and that the client should have subsequently been made aware, then a claim for negligent misrepresentation may follow.

Fraudulent misrepresentation

In moral terms, this is the worst kind of misrepresentation. This is because fraudulent misrepresentation is where a professional makes a statement or representation recklessly, i.e. while either knowing it to be false or likely to be false.

In any such situation, the client has a right to void the contract and, where appropriate, claim compensation for any losses sustained.

Legal solutions that work for you

If you have suffered financial loss as a result of the negligent misrepresentation of a professional, we can bring creative and authoritative legal solutions to benefit your case and, where appropriate, help you secure full compensation for your losses.

Contact our lawyers in our London or Brighton offices for more information about asserting your rights in law.

When you seek paid advice about a financial product or service, you have every right to expect that the investment professional will take full account of your particular circumstances. In the event that the advice you receive is negligent or unsuitable and it causes distress, inconvenience and financial loss talk to the professional negligence lawyers at Healys to bring clarity and purpose to your next steps. Continue reading →