What is the legal position where a Solicitor takes a matter up prior to an accident?

AnAlterEgo1998

There is not suggestion of wrongdoing by the Solicitor.

This is the Scenario.

An accident happened at 4pm to 4:10pm. There is an independent clock (bank ATM) to show that the accident could not have happened before 4pm. A telephone call was made to an Ambulance at 4:10pm. So there is a narrow, independently verifiable window for the accident.

A friend of one of the people involved in the accident contacted a Solicitor at 3:50pm. The Solicitor acknowledged the contact. Subsequently, at 4:30pm the Solicitor began the process of taking the business.

Can the third party involved in the accident (the one without the friend contacting the Solicitor), rely on the 3:50pm time to support a claim against the party whose friend contacted the Solicitor?

There is the possibility that the Solicitor walks away. Because the sequence of events could be claimed to be collusion. There is no suggestion of collusion. Any thoughts would be gratefully received.

Quentin

Maybe the injured party's friend is clairvoyant.

AnAlterEgo1998

Quentin wrote: »

Maybe the injured party's friend is clairvoyant.

But could the timing be used to support a claim that that friend is not clairvoyant.

WestonDave

When you say "Solicitor" does this mean firm or individual, and if firm was it a general practice or an Injury claim specialist.

If they phoned an injury solicitor (or specialist firm) then I would imagine it pretty much rules out the party with the friend making a claim against the 3rd party as the call would be raised as a means of defusing liability by suggesting prior staging of an accident specifically to claim compensation.

If it was a general call to a general practice firm which could be suggested to be about a divorce or something then they might have some space to argue it wasn't pre-planned.

On the other hand its not necessarily enough on its own for the 3rd party to prove that the party with the friend was at fault, although its going to add to the weight of evidence if its a case where liability is in question.

I'd be surprised if a reputable solicitor in this situation didn't walk away from it as it looks fishy even if its not.

AnAlterEgo1998

WestonDave wrote: »

When you say "Solicitor" does this mean firm or individual, and if firm was it a general practice or an Injury claim specialist.

WestonDave wrote: »

If they phoned an injury solicitor (or specialist firm) then I would imagine it pretty much rules out the party with the friend making a claim against the 3rd party as the call would be raised as a means of defusing liability by suggesting prior staging of an accident specifically to claim compensation.

If it was a general call to a general practice firm which could be suggested to be about a divorce or something then they might have some space to argue it wasn't pre-planned.

I do understand this distinction, but thanks for pointing it out. It does make it clearer. The Solicitor was a specific person at a specialist practice.

WestonDave wrote: »

On the other hand its not necessarily enough on its own for the 3rd party to prove that the party with the friend was at fault, although its going to add to the weight of evidence if its a case where liability is in question.

I'd be surprised if a reputable solicitor in this situation didn't walk away from it as it looks fishy even if its not.

I think you have put your finger on what I should have been asking: will the Solicitor protect their own hide (not saying there is anythign wrong in that).

I think that I was really asking: can the party with no friend ask the Solicitor to confirm the time is correct in relation to the independent clocks and would the Solicitor be obliged to do so?

Apart from being more curious about it - thanks for making it seem clearer.

InsideInsurance

Ok, there are too many friends and broad strokes of what happened etc but the crux ultimately is that someone spoke to a solicitor about an incident and you believe that conversation occurred prior to the incident.

What evidence do you have of when the conversation with the solicitor occurred? What do you know about the contents of the conversation?

AnAlterEgo1998

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Ok, there are too many friends and broad strokes of what happened etc but the crux ultimately is that someone spoke to a solicitor about an incident and you believe that conversation occurred prior to the incident.

What evidence do you have of when the conversation with the solicitor occurred? What do you know about the contents of the conversation?

I appreciate that you would like the crux to be "a belief". It is not.

The truth of the matter is that the evidence of the conversation is a publically viewable conversation with a series of timestamps next to the text.

Since there is no suggestion that the Solicitor did wrong. The crux is asking if the Solicitor can be asked to verify the time of first contact. The other two timestamps (Bank and Emergency Services) can verify the time of the accident's unfolding events and have done so.

I appreciate that there could be a lot of conversation about the accuracy of the different timestamps (se original post). Which is why the question is about the obligations of the Solicitor.

So to lay it out in detail:

3:50 Friend (X) of Y contacts Solicitor
4:00-4:10pm Accident occurs between Y and Z
4:30 Solicitor engages with Z

No broad brushstrokes at all.

Can the Solicitor be asked to verify the 3:50 and 4:30 times are correct?

I do appreciate that the detail of the conversation is important. Looking for a Solicitor before an accident does not need that kind of detail. It is pretty reasonable to say that it might have been a coincidence.

Quentin

Still hard to follow.

Why would a solicitor engage with Z (presumably the "other side") within just 30/40 mins of the incident??

rs65

AnAlterEgo1998 wrote: »

An accident happened at 4pm to 4:10pm.

Did this happen since the clocks changed?

I assume you are talking about online public contact. Could the server time have been wrong?

AnAlterEgo1998

Quentin wrote: »

Still hard to follow.

Why would a solicitor engage with Z (presumably the "other side") within just 30/40 mins of the incident??

Essentially to say, "you were in an accident with X. X says you are responsible please forward your details," which is how Z knows the Solicitor is acting for X.

AnAlterEgo1998

rs65 wrote: »

Did this happen since the clocks changed?

I assume you are talking about online public contact. Could the server time have been wrong?

Good point. Yes, public contact on a public server. The Server time could be wrong but it would them be wrong for several million people. Yes it is possible to be wrong. The probability of the server clock being wrong is very low.