QualitySolicitors founder member quits to return to 'core roots'

One of the founder members of the QualitySolicitors network is leaving the group in order to ‘reinstate its identity’.

Yorkshire firm Burns and Company was part of the original cohort when QS was founded amid a blaze of publicity in 2010 but will become independent from 1 April.

The firm, with offices in York and Easingwold, said it had joined the network to improve its operation but was now keen to promote links with its local community.

Director Graeme Burn said: ‘We’ve gained much from joining the QS network – improving our processes and becoming more accessible to people requiring legal services.

‘However, the time feels right to go back to our roots and our core values.’

The change involves removing all QS branding and replacing with a new firm logo, but managers say clients will not notice a difference in service.

The firm was keen to stress it was grateful to the network for the advantages that being part of the larger collective had brought.

Managing director Claire Rutter added: ‘The firm became accessible beyond traditional opening hours and our support personnel were trained as part of a first contact team, to assist and give enhanced guidance for both existing and potential clients.

‘QS also provided us with publicity on a national level and enabled potential clients to find us more easily, especially online.’

Several former members of the QS network have publicised their exit in recent years, although the company says its business model does not depend on large numbers staying.

Its new chief executive said last November the business was on a sound financial footing and working on contracts for bulk-buying key services such as indemnity insurance for members.

Ben Greco said the QS business would not explicitly offer ‘affiliate’ status, but is likely to give firms two options for how much they wanted to absorb the QS brand.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

QualitySolicitors founder member quits to return to 'core roots'

Partner and football agent fined for employing banned solicitor

A solicitor and football agent has agreed to pay a penalty of £2,000 after he was found to have knowingly employed a struck-off solicitor and failed to disclose a temporary suspension and fine placed on him by the Football Association.

Alan Middleton, partner at Middletons Solicitors in Liverpool, was also ordered to pay £2,500 in costs, according to a settlement notice published by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

The SRA said Middleton had paid Charles Darnell, whom he knew had been struck off and jailed in 1997, without the SRA’s permission. In May 1997 Darnell received an 11-year prison sentence after being caught in a drugs sting.

Middleton amitted that Darnell, through his company Philips Legal Services, had been paid £12,450 between 2009 and 2014. Darnell provided driving services for the firm but also worked on client files and provided litigation support.

The SRA also said that Middleton failed to tell the regulator when he applied to renew his practising certificate in 2015 that he had been fined £30,000 by the Football Association earlier that year for breaking football agent regulations. The FA fine related to the transfer of footballer Calum Chambers from Southampton to Arsenal in 2014.

Lastly, third party insurers had complained that Middleton’s firm had submitted claims for costs on behalf of clients in personal injury cases without justification. Middleton accepted that he had breached principles 2 and 6 SRA Principles 2011.

In a statement the SRA said Middleton ‘understands and accepts’ that if any terms of this agreement are not complied or if he acts in any way inconsistent with the agreement then his conduct will be referred to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Partner and football agent fined for employing banned solicitor

‘Cautionary tale’ on free advice from solicitors

Dispute resolution experts have stressed that lawyers should not fear the implications of a case where an architect was found liable for free professional advice to friends – but they must still exercise caution.

The Court of Appeal will give judgment in coming weeks over a £265,000 claim by a London couple suing their neighbour for allegedly negligent advice on a garden landscape project.

The case, decided in favour of the claimants in the High Court, has set off alarm bells among the professions, particularly as there was no contract involved. The court found in January that the architect, Basia Lejonvarn, owed a duty of care to her friends of 10 years to exercise ‘reasonable skill and care’ in the provision of professional services.

One report said the case may ‘make people think twice’ about free advice, but specialists say lawyers can cover themselves reasonably easily.

Nick Gee, principal lawyer at national firm Slater and Gordon, said the extent of the defendant’s involvement – including costing the project and assembling a team – was unlikely to be matched by a solicitor.

‘She went way beyond a chat in a pub or at a party,’ added Gee. ‘Of course, every solicitor has friends with legal issues from time to time. If you are giving [free] advice you should always couch it by saying “don’t rely on this”.’

But Susan Hopcraft, a partner at Midlands firm Wright Hassall, said the case hinges on whether the professional did owe her friends a duty of care, however ‘informal’ the relationship was supposed to be.

She echoed the High Court judge, Mr Alexander Nissen QC, who called it a ‘cautionary tale’ and pointed out that the absence of a contract was not a protection from liability.

Hopcraft added that ‘advice’ offered to prospective new clients is a particularly risky area: ‘There is always the worry that they will go off and act on it however preliminary or sketchy the thoughts offered.’

Andrew Willan, solicitor in the dispute resolution team at London firm Payne Hicks Beach, said the case provided a salutary lesson for any professional tempted to offer free advice.

He said the boundary between informal advice seemingly given to friends or associates in a social context, and situations where there is an assumption of responsibility by a professional and reliance on their special skills, can become ‘blurred’.

‘It is not difficult to envisage analogous situations arising in the context of professionals voluntarily acting in other unpaid roles.

In another development, solicitors have hailed a Supreme Court decision in a professional negligence case as providing much-needed clarity on their liability when they mistakenly give a client erroneous information.

In BPE Solicitors and Anor v Hughes-Holland (in substitution for Gabriel), five Supreme Court justices rejected an attempt to overturn a decision that BPE Solicitors was not responsible for the entire costs of a disastrous property transaction because it provided allegedly incorrect information after a client had decided to embark upon the transaction.

BPE’s solicitors, commercial firm Beale & Company, said that the decision had provided clarity. ‘There are no longer exceptions to the rule that in information retainers professionals are only responsible for the consequences of their information being wrong,’ partner Rhian Howell said.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

‘Cautionary tale’ on free advice from solicitors

New Legal Ombudsman chair cleared by MPs

The justice committee of the House of Commons has formally backed the appointment of a new chair for the legal complaints service.

The committee today endorsed Wanda Goldwag as the new chair of the Office for Legal Complaints, despite an unconvincing display before MPs earlier this week.

During a 45-minute appearance former marketing director Goldwag admitted she had not read the Legal Ombudsman rules and could name only one frontline regulator.

It was also revealed today that Goldwag had inadvertently omitted to record a small shareholding in alternative business structure Kings Court Trust when she completed her conflicts of interest form as part of the recruitment process.

The committee said it had received assurances from Legal Services Board chairman Sir Michael Pitt that this was a ‘genuine mistake’ and would have had no impact on her application.

The committee stated: ‘We consider that Wanda Goldwag fully meets the criteria necessary to fulfil the role of chair of the Office for Legal Complaints effectively, and we endorse her suitability for it.’

Goldwag told MPs she intends to overhaul the system for filing complaints and plans to implement an online portal for consumers.

She takes on a role leading an organisation dogged by expenses scandals and missed time targets in recent years. The ombudsman service is currently reviewing its scope and has said it would welcome any opportunity to extend its jurisdiction.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

New Legal Ombudsman chair cleared by MPs

Jackson fears NHS waiting time claim would open floodgates

The Court of Appeal has rejected a claim from an emergency patient who relied on misleading advice from a hospital receptionist.

Assault victim Michael Darnley had attended Mayday Hospital in Croydon, London, with a head injury but was told by a receptionist he might have to wait up to five hours to be seen.

After 19 minutes he decided to go home, unaware that a triage nurse was due to examine him within half an hour of arrival. Darnley was found later to have suffered an extradural haematoma and sustained long-term disabilities.

Darnley claimed for negligence against Croydon Health Services NHS Trust based on the actions of the receptionist but lost his case in the High Court in July 2015, prompting an appeal.

Following a one-day hearing last month, Lord Justice Jackson said the original judgment had been correct to rule the hospital receptionist did not have legal responsibility.

The appeal court said the fair view was that information was provided as a matter of courtesy and a spirit of trying to be helpful to the public, but that advice about waiting time was not subject to a duty of care in law.

In Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust, Jackson said he saw force in the judge’s concerns about the ‘floodgate’ argument that a successful claim would encourage a wave of similar cases.

He said: ‘Litigation about who said what to whom in A & E waiting rooms could become a fertile area for claimants and their representatives.

‘Alternatively, healthcare providers could close down this area of risk altogether by instructing reception staff to say nothing to patients apart from asking for their details.’

He added that even if he was wrong about incorrect information being a breach of duty, the scope of that duty could not extend to liability for the consequences of patients walking out without telling the staff they were leaving.

While Lord Justice Sales concurred with Jackson, Lord Justice McCombe disagreed, arguing the defendant was in breach of its duty to the claimant and that that breach caused the claimant’s injury.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Jackson fears NHS waiting time claim would open floodgates

Bolton law firm Asons ceases trading in 'fresh start'

The Bolton-based firm at the centre of a row over a local government grant has changed hands. In a statement this afternoon the firm said: ‘As of today, Asons Solicitors has ceased trading. All employees have been TUPE'd to Coops Law and there will be no job losses. We can confirm that Dr Imran Akram [former chief executive] has left the business.

‘The new employers will honour the terms and conditions of the grant awarded by Bolton Council.'

An Asons spokesperson said: 'This is a fresh start for everyone – the employees and the people of Bolton.'

Coops Law is thought to be owned by Irfan Akram. Asons’ previous owners were Imran and Kamran Akram. 

Asons, based in the Churchgate area of the city, was awarded a £300,000 grant last year under Bolton council’s emergency powers procedure. This procedure allows the authority to take ‘any action on behalf of the council in any cases of urgency’.

The firm’s accounts show a dispute with the tax authorities also quantified at £300,000 and a loss of more than £1m for the year to May 2015. There is no evidence linking the £300,000 dispute referred to in the accounts with the same sum handed to Asons for the building development work.

An independent audit by accountancy KPMG into the grant is expected.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Bolton law firm Asons ceases trading in 'fresh start'

Bolton-based Asons to announce change in ownership

The Bolton-based firm at the centre of a row over a local government grant has changed hands, the Gazette understands.

Asons Solicitors is understood to have been purchased by a company called Coop Law. The firm’s website is currently down, as is its Twitter feed.

Coop Law is thought to be owned by Irfan Akram. Asons’ previous owners were Imran and Kamran Akram. 

Asons, based in the Churchgate area of the city, was awarded a £300,000 grant last year under Bolton council’s emergency powers procedure. This procedure allows the authority to take ‘any action on behalf of the council in any cases of urgency’.

The firm’s accounts show a dispute with the tax authorities also quantified at £300,000 and a loss of more than £1m for the year to May 2015. There is no evidence linking the £300,000 dispute referred to in the accounts with the same sum handed to Asons for the building development work.

An independent audit into the grant carried out by KPMG is expected.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority said it had not heard from Asons about a change in ownership. 

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Bolton-based Asons to announce change in ownership