Warning: Solicitors' Indemnity Insurance

Bulbeckblue

The level of uninformed and outright misleading information in this thread is very worrying. People come to this site for consumer advice and, if they read this thread, will come away with all sorts of completely inaccurate views which have been presented as facts by people who clearly don’t have the relevant knowledge.

I’ll take a few of the key points to set the record straight:-

1- “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. “

Simply not true. A claim against a solicitor is the same as any other. If it is a very strong claim and the losses evidenced, it will be paid up. No insurer is stupid enough to go to trial by not paying a fair value for the claim.

2- “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. “

Poppycock. When claiming against a solicitor you are entitled to ask and be advised of the solicitors insurers.


3- “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.”

Woefully inaccurate and misleading. Anyone insuring a solicitor must be a qualifying insurer and meet certain standards, sign up to a special agreement, and have policies meeting exacting minimum terms (which include the unusual and very generous protection of preventing insurers from declining cover to an insured solicitor, even if that solicitor neglects to notify the claim for years, or acts in a way which completely prejudices the defence).

The Assigned Risks Pool is an insurer of last resort funded by the QIs and run by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. It is not “non qualified” and neither is it part of a sector. It is there for firms who cannot get insurance on the open market and for firms that close or are closed, without having proper insurance arrangements in place. It is run on the same minimum terms etc as all the other insurers and is in no respect a different “level” of insurance.

4- “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.”

This speaks volumes. It sounds like it was the costs risk (huge given PCR’s fees) that prompted movement, not the merits of the claim….

5- “ 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.”

WRONG. Courts will not allow expert solicitors in cases except in the rarest of instances.

6- “The question must be asked - why didn't the original solicitors acknowledge their error when challenged by the client? Why did they wait for another solicitor to get involved,”

For precisely the same reason you shouldn’t admit fault at the site of a car crash, without your insurers’ say so.

7- “The same does not happen in the medical profession. If an error is made, it is documented and the patient is informed. Some patients will consequently return in due course with a clinical negligence solicitor on a CFA!

The solicitor profession is different and from the anecdotal evidence (in this thread, for example), they appear to do all they can to get rid of a client when things don't go according to plan and loss/damages are incurred.”

A quite bizarre suggestion. A solicitor cannot generally continue acting for or advising a client who is intimating a claim against him/her. It creates an immediate conflict of interests. You will find that if a solicitor makes an error, they will almost inevitably tell the client and suggest they take independent advice.

Crabman

I'm not sure what planet Bulbeckblue is currently orbiting (or which bridge they're hiding under ) but I hope he/she comes back down to earth soon.

Bulbeckblue

Planet reality. Also known as Planet professional knowledge.

Perhaps you'd care to explain where I have gone astray in my comments?

Crabman

Bulbeckblue wrote: »

Planet reality. Also known as Planet professional knowledge.

Perhaps you'd care to explain where I have gone astray in my comments?

I really can't be bothered to quote each paragraph so hope you don't mind having to refer to your post above:

1 - The longer a claim is dragged out and the more doubt cast and the more pressure put on a Claimant the more likely it is they will 'go away'. Especially so with a litigant in person. Let me remind you that a Litigant in Person has every right to conduct litigation themselves and that this stance is encouraged and taken account of by the courts.

2 - Not in my experience.

3 - Not my post.

4 - I am not at liberty to discuss details but if case merits weren't good why would Defendant's insurer pay out? Why would Claimant get a CFA on the basis of < 51% success?

5 - Not my post but fairly obvious nevertheless.

6 - This is most interesting. What you are effectively saying is a solicitor could be instructed to write a will, could make a mistake and yet would be under no obligation to advise their client?

Oh dear. This does not bode well for your claim of orbiting Planet "professional knowledge". I refer you to Paragraph 54 under 3.01(2)(b) of the Solicitors' Code of Conduct:

Where you discover an act or omission which would justify a claim against you, you must inform the client, and recommend they seek independent advice. You must also inform the client that independent advice should be sought in cases where the client makes a claim against you, or notifies an intention to do so. If the client refuses to seek independent advice, you should not continue to act unless you are satisfied that there is no conflict of interest.

7 - In what I've witnessed the solicitor continued to act and tried to make out it wasn't his fault and the client being a trusting person believed the solicitor. The solicitor then delayed issue of the final bill for a year to stop the Legal Complaints Service from investigating because of their ridiculous 6 month time limit. This is a tactic that was exposed and reported on by Radio 4's You and Yours a while ago and sadly the Law Society appear to have done little to close this loophole.

Bulbeckblue

Deary me.



1 - The longer a claim is dragged out and the more doubt cast and the more pressure put on a Claimant the more likely it is they will 'go away'. Especially so with a litigant in person. Let me remind you that a Litigant in Person has every right to conduct litigation themselves and that this stance is encouraged and taken account of by the courts.

This is not actually very true. The best way to incur massive costs is to do battle over years with a litigant in person who becomes ever more obsessive about the claim.

What you are ignorant of is how insurers and their representatives REALLY work. Insurers want genuine advice on the merits and will not thank their advisers for dragging something out which could be knocked on the head quickly and commercially. In 12 years I have never had instructions from an insurer to the effect that I should "delay and be obstructive in the hope the claim goes away".

2 - Not in my experience.

Your experience is limited then- its a point of conduct and case law.

3 - Not my post.

4 - I am not at liberty to discuss details but if case merits weren't good why would Defendant's insurer pay out? Why would Claimant get a CFA on the basis of < 51% success?

Because clever and expensive solicitors know that the costs risk will often push an insurer to make a quick settlement even when the merits dont warrant it. Happens time and time again.

5 - Not my post but fairly obvious nevertheless.

Whats fairly obvious? You agree with me or not?

6 - This is most interesting. What you are effectively saying is a solicitor could be instructed to write a will, could make a mistake and yet would be under no obligation to advise their client?

Oh dear. This does not bode well for your claim of orbiting Planet "professional knowledge". I refer you to Paragraph 54 under 3.01(2)(b) of the Solicitors' Code of Conduct:

Quote:
Where you discover an act or omission which would justify a claim against you, you must inform the client, and recommend they seek independent advice. You must also inform the client that independent advice should be sought in cases where the client makes a claim against you, or notifies an intention to do so. If the client refuses to seek independent advice, you should not continue to act unless you are satisfied that there is no conflict of interest.


Not what I said. Its the straight away bit that is the issue. They would normally contact their insurers, get immediate advice and then advise the client if independent advice should be taken. If a mistake is very clear- then they would immediately say so (having called insurers to agree that admission) Of course, often these things are by no means clear cut.

7 - In what I've witnessed the solicitor continued to act and tried to make out it wasn't his fault and the client being a trusting person believed the solicitor. The solicitor then delayed issue of the final bill for a year to stop the Legal Complaints Service from investigating because of their ridiculous 6 month time limit. This is a tactic that was exposed and reported on by Radio 4's You and Yours a while ago and sadly the Law Society appear to have done little to close this loophole.

As various people have been at pains to point out- not everyone is perfect in any profession. If the complaint was about a bill- then the client can require it to be assessed. If its about conduct, they can go to the SRA as soon as it happens. If its negligence, they have six years to claim.

Of course- none of those things were the point being made. The post in question was suggesting that solicitors get rid of clients rather than putting things right. Thats because acting would carry a conflict of interests. But you ignored that in favour of a ranting tangent.

Equaliser123

Crabman wrote: »

I really can't be bothered to quote each paragraph so hope you don't mind having to refer to your post above:

1 - The longer a claim is dragged out and the more doubt cast and the more pressure put on a Claimant the more likely it is they will 'go away'. Especially so with a litigant in person. Let me remind you that a Litigant in Person has every right to conduct litigation themselves and that this stance is encouraged and taken account of by the courts.

2 - Not in my experience.

3 - Not my post.

4 - I am not at liberty to discuss details but if case merits weren't good why would Defendant's insurer pay out? Why would Claimant get a CFA on the basis of < 51% success?

5 - Not my post but fairly obvious nevertheless.

6 - This is most interesting. What you are effectively saying is a solicitor could be instructed to write a will, could make a mistake and yet would be under no obligation to advise their client?

Oh dear. This does not bode well for your claim of orbiting Planet "professional knowledge". I refer you to Paragraph 54 under 3.01(2)(b) of the Solicitors' Code of Conduct:

7 - In what I've witnessed the solicitor continued to act and tried to make out it wasn't his fault and the client being a trusting person believed the solicitor. The solicitor then delayed issue of the final bill for a year to stop the Legal Complaints Service from investigating because of their ridiculous 6 month time limit. This is a tactic that was exposed and reported on by Radio 4's You and Yours a while ago and sadly the Law Society appear to have done little to close this loophole.

Crabman, I appreciate that you have had some sort of bad experience with solicitors, but I think your last couple of threads have been very disrespectful and rather antagonistic.

Just my view, but as a Board Guide, I would have expected a bit better.

Equaliser123

Crabman wrote: »

I'm not sure what planet Bulbeckblue is currently orbiting (or which bridge they're hiding under ) but I hope he/she comes back down to earth soon.

I think particularly unfair and very inappropriate. Bulbeckblue seems to have posted in an informed manner. It contradicts your experience / knowledge but should not be shot down in such a manner purely because of that.

Bulbeckblue

Ah dont worry. I didnt post to cause any trouble. I was looking for something else and was surprised at what was posted because it really was a long way off on a number of points. Just worried me a bit that people my believe it all as fact rather than questioning it.

Particularly the bit about solicitors insurance and the phantom second tier.

My honest view (from the inside) is that 90% of "delay" by insurers in these matters is heavy caseloads rather than anything cynical. Insurers would much prefer that I told them to settle a claim for £10k in 3 months, than spend 4 years trying to see it off- even if succesful. Insurance companies like quick resolutions and certainty.

absfabs

It can be done, my learned friends!
Am not legally savvy, but would like to share this experience. A negligent/incompetent solicitor dragged his feet for so long, several years in fact, that a claim was lost.
I instructed a new solicitor, who within a very short time got the same figure from the first solicitor or his insurers, that this solicitor and I had agreed to pursue in the first place.
Just posting this in case anyone here thinks they cannot fight a solicitor!

Crabman

Equaliser123 wrote: »

Crabman, I appreciate that you have had some sort of bad experience with solicitors, but I think your last couple of threads have been very disrespectful and rather antagonistic.

Just my view, but as a Board Guide, I would have expected a bit better.

Feel free to email [EMAIL="abuse&#64;moneysavingexpert.com"]abuse@moneysavingexpert.com[/EMAIL] to complain.

In the case which I refer to, the defendants point blank refused to release details of the insurer and claimed it was confidential. Are you/Bulbeckblue saying this was wrong of them? If a matter of conduct is this potentially something the Claimant needs to report to the LCS?

I don't know whether or not you are a solicitor but I was surprised that despite your experience in this area, you thought a court would ask for evidence from an 'expert solicitor'.

Insurance companies will do everything possible to mitigate a claim (look at MSE's Insurance Board for evidence of this). It isn't a case of insurers happily wishing to pay up at the first available opportunity and encouraging solicitors to notify clients of a claim. They will try to avoid paying out and when they have to settle, they will do all they can to make that as little as possible.

There are law firms out there making big bucks from defending PI claims (in contrast to falling corporate business revenue) and it is clearly in their interest to drag matters on.

Regarding point 6 - I really, really do wish that this had happened in the case I refer to, because it would have been so much easier for everyone. Yet this isn't what happened, the fault of the solicitors was covered-up. Documents went missing (luckily the Claimant had copies which made for interesting discussion during a case management hearing) and frankly every attempt was made to get rid of the Claimant just because they didn't have a solicitor.

Equaliser123 - you said, "you would be an absolute idiot to represent yourself in a professional negligence claim against a firm of solicitors."

I appreciate that in your position you may be dealing with respected and honourable professionals, but it is entirely possible to represent yourself in a claim against a firm provided you have the truth on your side and strong case merits. I think the experience I have set out proves that it is in fact possible. There was a lot of co-operation from the Courts towards the Claimant which definitely made things easier and the court staff were angels.

It's interesting too that CHR1S' experience (strikingly similar to the experience I refer to) is seemingly not accepted as further anecdotal evidence of what happens when things don't work out between a client and solicitor. Is CHR1S' experience just a one-off? Is the case I refer to a one-off too?

What about absfabs post (thanks for posting absfabs!)? I suppose that too is a one-off and is not representative of what really happens? Wake up and smell the coffee, the solicitor profession is not as honest as you are trying to make out.