Report comment

PN cases are looking set to rise in the post-Jackson future as far as I can tell. This looks like an example of a bridge too far though. A firm is not obliged to take on any case at all, and has to perform its own risk assessment of the merits of any particular case. The thing about opinion is that everyone has one, but the one's that count in this context are the lawyer and counsel ones. If I had a case that looked shaky and a negative or low probability of success (below 68%) then I would have trouble getting ATE and even more trouble if I proceed with the case. If a subsequent lawyer gets a subsequent opinion and proceeds, that's up to them, but that doesn't open up the previous opinion to negligence - it couldn't - if it did, no-one would give any opinions about merits!