Ask the judges

Our panel of district judges answers readers' questions on civil practice and procedureQ The new professional negligence pre-action protocol precludes commencement of proceedings until the end of the negotiation period 'unless it is necessary' (para (B)8.1).

Would a claimant be justified in commencement after a reasonable opportunity had been given to respond to the letter of claim where the claim was in negligence against former solicitors and the claimant was under pressure to restore a property unlawfully altered in breach of covenant (the solicitors having allegedly failed to advise on building restrictions)?A 'Necessary' is not given any restrictive definition and so an early commencement of a claim in this sort of situation might well be justified.

If the court took a contrary view then it would be likely to stay the claim until the pre-action protocol negotiation period had been worked through.

Q We are increasingly having to deal with law costs negotiators - often, their approach is unreasonable - in respect of our costs at the conclusion of claims notwithstanding that there are solicitors on record for the paying party.

We are expected to deal with correspondence from both which is time consuming and increases our costs.

Can we refuse to deal with the negotiators?A You may certainly refuse to deal with a costs negotiator - a new breed of agent which is not recognised by the CPR - but whether this would facilitate a settlement with the solicitors is another matter.

On the detailed assessment itself, a negotiator would have no greater right to represent a party than any other unqualified agent.

The business of negotiators is considered by some to be objectionable as they are paid by results (that is, a percentage of the reduction achieved).

It might be argued that their work is champertous but the point has not been tested.

Statutory provision for a properly regulated professional body might be desirable.Questions may be e-mailed to: kim.davies@lawsociety.org.ukThe answers are the view of our panel and are not binding on any court.

The panel regrets it is unable to enter into personal correspondence