Report comment

Peter Ryder - no, which is why I picked something that the mechanic would be able to see at a glance. That's because, according to the article, "the judge noted that the solicitor had been involved and must have been aware that service should take place."

I'm not suggesting that anyone should, when charging a modest fixed fee for a restricted element of work (e.g. giving advice on the prospects of success in an ET claim), be expected to advise on other, far less obvious or technical things. For instance, without further fees, they can't be expected to make a full application with proposed draft to amend the pleadings; but they could advise that such a move would be in the client's interests. Nor should they (in that scenario) also be expected to draft a will, consider whether the client has impliedly granted an easement over their property or assist in their divorce, even if the client needs all that doing.

However, if the client says "I can't afford the extra £5,000," I'd expect the solicitor at least to point them in the right direction in terms of things like time limits, the requirement to copy the other side in to their application and so on. Just the basics, signposting them to the required next steps. Maybe even recommend a book!

Otherwise, in the mechanic example, if I drive off and get stopped and fined by the police, I think I'd have a pretty reasonable basis to be thoroughly disgruntled. Worse, if those bald tyres that he noticed but didn't even mention then lead to me being involved in a collision - I rather imagine the person I hit would share my "disappointment".

And I definitely wouldn't use that garage again, and I'd probably just have had my worst fears, that mechanics are out to make a quick buck and don't give two hoots about my wider safety, realised. I wonder why lawyers get such bad press?