Report comment

The problem is an indirect one though. The judge in the case in which the problem arises is unlikely to mention, nor care, about unbundled services.

Rather like the Gazette's report of Sequence Properties above, or the one about wills a couple of weeks ago before Behrens, the judge is likely simply to mention the fact that the client had legal advice from a solicitor.

Said client will then jump up and down and say "that's irrelevant, it's not fair, I didn't know the will needed to say 'XYZ' / I didn't know the bundle needed to be sent to 'ABC'".

Said judge will say "ah well the solicitor would have known that and should have told you". That is where the problem lies. This will happen particularly at the lower level with DJs always looking to blame somebody else (the solicitor) for the inept and ridiculous court system.

And then the Legal Ombudsman and / or the Recorder or Circuit Judge in the ensuing professional negligence claim will happily find that the solicitor giving the unbundled service ought to have also advised on 'ABC' as well as part of the retainer.

See also Padden v Bevan Ashford where the newly qualified solicitor was held to have been negligent - despite advising the client NOT to sign the document in question and proceed with the transaction - for not giving financial and criminal law advice that the newly qualified solicitor was never asked to give.