We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results:1-6 of 6

Solicitors’ regulation
  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • October 24 2011

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) revised Code of Conduct came into force on 6 October 2011.


Defective CFA
  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • June 29 2011

Solicitors entered into a second CFA with their client on different terms without explaining that caps on their basic charges had been removed.


Presumed undue influence
  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • February 23 2011

The claimant solicitor was able to rebut the presumption that his client had signed a promissory note as a result of undue influence because the client was sophisticated and experienced in dealings with property, had had opportunities to take independent legal advice and had obtained benefits from the transaction.


Capacity
  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • February 23 2011

A solicitor does not have a duty to obtain medical evidence of a client's mental capacity solely because the client is elderly, but only where there are circumstances that raise doubt about capacity in the mind of a reasonably competent practitioner.


Solicitors’ duty of care to client’s family
  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • October 25 2010

Where solicitors had allegedly negligently advised a client in connection with a mesothelioma claim and he subsequently died, the solicitors did not owe a duty of care to the client's widow as an individual (as opposed to as executrix) nor to the couple's children.


Champerty and conditional fee agreements
  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • March 26 2010

Where CFAs used to fund simple housing disrepair cases provided that the solicitors would indemnify the client in respect of any adverse costs orders not covered by insurance, this did not amount to champerty or maintenance and the CFAs were accordingly enforceable.