Report comment

".....The 70-year-old, admitted in 1981, signed the documents in order to meet a deadline for exchange of witness statements: he claimed that his client was aware of what he was doing, but he accepted that the signatures should have come from the witnesses themselves. .."

What I dont understand is what ramifications were affected / avoided.

Part 22 CPR:

"...Documents to be verified by a statement of truth

(3) a witness statement ... "

I accept that the foot of the Statement of Truth says:

‘[I believe][the (claimant or as may be) believes] that the facts stated in this [name document being verified] are true.’

So what rule of Common Law or practice has been infringed?

A Solicitor has been their client's agent since at least 1189.

The question then is if the other side take issue they subpoena the client to Court. If the client doesn't like the result then they subpoena the Solicitor to Court (who doesn't have privilege on the file as that is the client's file (assuming they have paid the bill - which in this case might be suspect)? .

I don't understand why the Solicitor was rebuked?

Perhaps the article needs clarification Editor?