My firm has recently been allowed onto the restricted panel of a relatively large bank to deal with commercial and residential lending.

While initially we were instructed solely by the bank and the borrower was separately represented, we have recently been instructed by both borrower and the bank.

The bank's standard certificate on title does not restrict the solicitors' duties to those matters contained in rule 6 (3), and when this issue was raised with the bank in question, it suggested that this could easily be resolved by different solicitors, or partners in the same firm acting for the borrower and the lender.

When this issue was raised with the Law Society ethics department, I was advised that this arrangement would not circumvent the limitation placed on certificates by rule 6 (3), and that only where there were separate firms representing the borrower would the lender rule 6 (3) not apply.

I have been told by the bank that of the 300 or so firms on its panel this issue has only been raised on perhaps five or six occasions by firms and that the majority are happy for different solicitors/partners within a practice to act for the borrower and lender to overcome this difficulty.

Are the majority of firms therefore correct in their assumption that this does not present a problem?

In the unfortunate event that a claim were to be made against my firm by the lender for negligence on the basis of failure to carry out its instructions which exceeded rule 6 (3), would my indemnity insurers still indemnify?

Jamie R Coomber, Gilbert Turner Coomber, London