Warning: Solicitors' Indemnity Insurance

Crabman

On BBC2's Working Lunch today I noticed Robert Heslett make the case for making wills with a 'solicitor' as opposed to a will writer or other non-solicitor professional.

He commented that solicitors have indemnity insurance to cover consumers for any losses as a result of a mistake in the will/other error made by the solicitor.

This is somewhat misleading - anyone who has ever had to file a claim against a solicitor knows that they will fight it tooth and nail and that the 'client' whom they previously treated with respect and care is instead threatened and intimidated in an attempt to 'make them go away'.

Furthermore when a solicitor (or their insurer) agrees a payout, it will never be for full losses. It is highly misleading to suggest that a solicitor will simply agree to pay the losses when there is a distinct lack of evidence available to support this view.

The insurance company for the solicitor will (in the absence of a court order compelling disclosure) usually remain anonymous and there is therefore nothing for the insurer to lose by being awkward and dragging their feet. As they are anonymous there is also no need to worry about their reputation.

Of course there are highly competent firms of solicitors such as Carter-Ruck of London who openly disclose to prospective clients who their indemnity insurers are. Why don't all solicitors use this honest and up-front approach? :think:

It was disappointing to see the President of the Law Society not giving the general public a true impression of the way the solicitor industry works and perhaps even misleading them with regard to how solicitors' professional indemnity insurance payouts are handled when things do go wrong.

bingo_bango

I was reading up recently on solicitor's professional indemnity insurance and where it all goes wrong. There are 2 'levels' of insurance underwriters for solicitors. There is a list of QI - Qualified Insurers - who are passed as fit by the Law Society. There is then the non qualified sector (ARM anyone?) who are used by some shady law outfits (and a majority of decent law abiding law firms!), a number of whom are currently under investigation. There is no suggestion of impropriety on behalf of these insurers, but the actions of some of their clients leave a lot to be desired. A number of those insurance companies involved have tried to argue that they are only there to provide insurance for genuine mistake, and can not be held accountable for fraudulent activity carried out by their clients.

So if you have been 'had' by a solicitor you will face an almighty struggle to reclaim any costs or damages from their PII.

If I can find the article on a public forum I'll post a link.

jimbms

A Manxman found a shell on the beach and a genie popped out and gave him a wish. He asked for a golden covered bridge to be built from the island to England so he could drive there and do his shopping (We occasionaly like to do this even though we hate the place). The genie said no way as the logistics of it and the geological obsticles would make it impossible so try another wish, so the Manxman asked for a solicitor who was honest reliable and would not overcharge him for buying a house. the genie replied .........................."OK how many lanes would you like on this bridge"

Equaliser123

Crabman wrote: »

He commented that solicitors have indemnity insurance to cover consumers for any losses as a result of a mistake in the will/other error made by the solicitor.

This is somewhat misleading - anyone who has ever had to file a claim against a solicitor knows that they will fight it tooth and nail and that the 'client' whom they previously treated with respect and care is instead threatened and intimidated in an attempt to 'make them go away'.

Furthermore when a solicitor (or their insurer) agrees a payout, it will never be for full losses. It is highly misleading to suggest that a solicitor will simply agree to pay the losses when there is a distinct lack of evidence available to support this view.

The insurance company for the solicitor will (in the absence of a court order compelling disclosure) usually remain anonymous and there is therefore nothing for the insurer to lose by being awkward and dragging their feet. As they are anonymous there is also no need to worry about their reputation.

Of course there are highly competent firms of solicitors such as Carter-Ruck of London who openly disclose to prospective clients who their indemnity insurers are. Why don't all solicitors use this honest and up-front approach? :think:

It was disappointing to see the President of the Law Society not giving the general public a true impression of the way the solicitor industry works and perhaps even misleading them with regard to how solicitors' professional indemnity insurance payouts are handled when things do go wrong.

I find this to be a total generalisation and, itself, very misleading and not at all indicative of the way a professional negligence claim proceeds. There is every incentive for a professional indemnity insurer to settle given that costs will be increasing, interest will be accruing on the claim and that they risk a costs sanction under the Civil Procedure Rules if they do not follow the "Protocols".

In my experience - having worked for 3 top 100 law firms - the firm will always provide details of their professional indemnity cover.

Really not sure why Carter Ruck are being promoted as being above the others.

Crabman

Equaliser123 wrote: »

I find this to be a total generalisation and, itself, very misleading and not at all indicative of the way a professional negligence claim proceeds. There is every incentive for a professional indemnity insurer to settle given that costs will be increasing, interest will be accruing on the claim and that they risk a costs sanction under the Civil Procedure Rules if they do not follow the "Protocols".

In my experience - having worked for 3 top 100 law firms - the firm will always provide details of their professional indemnity cover.

Really not sure why Carter Ruck are being promoted as being above the others.

I'm not at liberty to divulge details, however, I mention (not 'promote') Carter-Ruck as it's important that competent & conscientious solicitors are recognised. They did a better job than 15 other firms who assessed a case as having 'little or no merits of success'. Needless to say the matter was successful. This is why I consider them to be 'above the rest' and I am entitled to hold such opinion.

The costs issue does not really exist when a litigant in person is the Claimant. The insurers (or their appointed defence solicitors) will happily use intimidation and if necessary act like children to try and dissuade the claim. Only when a solicitor for the Claimant writes to the Defendant will they consider the costs risk and stop fooling around.

With a litigant in person, often the only significant costs risk is that of the insurer's own defending solicitor and frankly that's often a small price to pay given the chance of it making the Claim "go away". In any case the insurers will hit the solicitors at the subject of the claim with an increased renewal premium anyway even if settlement of the claim is artificially delayed until after the annual indemnity insurance renewal point.

The 'costs sanction' is not relevant where a case does not progress to trial. I'm sure you're aware of the number of cases that settle and thus breaches of protocols aren't seen by the court.

Equaliser123

To be frank, you would be an absolute idiot to represent yourself in a professional negligence claim against a firm of solicitors. Given that the standard to be shown is that the defendant solicitor did or not do something which a reasonable solicitor would have, an expert solicitor would, in any event, have to give evidence.

Your tales of professional negligence do not, I'm afraid, stack with my experience including 2 years acting AGAINST negligent solicitors and surveyors.

Equaliser123

Crabman wrote: »

I'm not at liberty to divulge details, however, I mention (not 'promote') Carter-Ruck as it's important that competent & conscientious solicitors are recognised. They did a better job than 15 other firms who assessed a case as having 'little or no merits of success'. Needless to say the matter was successful. This is why I consider them to be 'above the rest' and I am entitled to hold such opinion.

.

Of course you are entitled to hold an opinion but I cannot even ascertain if you have been a client, whether you know the full details or such like.

I'm sure Carter-Ruck are decent enough - as are, frankly, most of the established firms in the UK. The legal profession is a very highly regulated industry yet there will always be bad eggs. Holding them out as being better than the 15 other firms from an assessment is, probably, rather narrow evidence.

CHR15

Crabman wrote: »

This is somewhat misleading - anyone who has ever had to file a claim against a solicitor knows that they will fight it tooth and nail and that the 'client' whom they previously treated with respect and care is instead threatened and intimidated in an attempt to 'make them go away'.
.

I can certainly vouch for that.
I took a Solicitor to Court, I endured no end of intimidation about how my case was flawed, had no legal basis etc etc

Come the day of the hearing, they didn't turn up. Judge took minutes to agree my case.

Equaliser123

CHR15 wrote: »

I can certainly vouch for that.
I took a Solicitor to Court, I endured no end of intimidation about how my case was flawed, had no legal basis etc etc

Come the day of the hearing, they didn't turn up. Judge took minutes to agree my case.

Big claim? Was it the solicitors or insurers who defended?

CHR15

Wasn't a big claim, but come the day, nobody defended! They simply didn't appear.

No doubt they earnt more money with new customers that day than they stood to lose by attending Court.

It annoyed me a little when I read back through the letters they sent me telling me I haven't a cat in hells chance against them

Darksun

Equaliser123 wrote: »

Really not sure why Carter Ruck are being promoted as being above the others.

Because who would dare say anything bad about Carter **** :rotfl: