Immunity attack

I acted as co-ordinating solicitor for the client respondents in the appeal to the House of Lords, the outcome of which was removal of advocates' immunity from suit.I read with interest the comment 'The end of a confusing rule' by Patrick Gaul, co-ordinating solicitor for the appellant solicitors (on the instructions of the Solicitors Indemnity Fund) (see [2000] Gazette, 27 July, 16).Mr Gaul appears to imply that the SIF decided to pursue the appeal to the House of Lords in the interests of the public and to clarify the question of immunity.

If such were the case, I would be interested to know why the SIF briefed a senior QC with a team of juniors who argued strenuously and intricately, not only for retention of immunity from suit, but for the expansion of immunity.The reality of it is that the legal advisers for the client respondents took the opportunity of the SIF appeal to the House of Lords to make a root-and-branch attack upon the whole issue of immunity from suit, that being well beyond the facts of the individual cases.

Paul Walton, Hill Dickinson, Liverpool