Report comment

We are all struggling with the idea that clients should be able to select service levels in legal advice, as they can in other areas. Th courts need to recognise that not providing a Rolls-Royce service is not ipso facto negligent, and the profession needs to find ways to signal to clients what level of service they are paying for, or that their funder is paying for. It's an inevitable part of the modern world that individuals are expected to take some risk in return for reduced cost. If that means taking responsibility for disclosing relevant facts to their lawyer (just as they have to with their online insurance company) without a face-to-face cross-examination, is there anything wrong with that? We can't have a position in which clients can run to the cheapest and most superficial service and then expect the profession to recompense them if things go wrong.