Procter v Raleys Solicitors

A solicitor must exercise the care of a reasonably competent practitioner in the relevant specialist field. The steps required to ensure that advice is understood depend on the facts and degree; there is no rule that a solicitor need never test a client’s understanding.

Where written advice is unclear, the client is unsophisticated in the relevant field, and available information indicates that the client may be abandoning a valuable claim through misunderstanding, reasonable competence may require a direct discussion. Standardised claims handling and financial constraints do not relieve the solicitor of that duty. Standard-form advice must explain the material entitlement clearly, including whether gratuitous assistance qualifies for compensation.

The claimant, a former miner suffering from vibration white finger, instructed the defendant solicitors to pursue compensation under a tariff-based scheme. He settled without claiming compensation for assistance with domestic tasks. He later alleged that the solicitors’ unclear standard letters caused him to believe that only paid assistance qualified.

His Honour Judge Gosnell in Leeds County Court found the solicitors negligent and awarded damages for the lost opportunity to pursue the services claim. The solicitors appealed on the sole issue whether reasonable competence required a meeting or telephone discussion to ensure that the claimant understood the written advice.

1. Appeal dismissed unanimously. The judge correctly applied the standard of the reasonably competent solicitor, adjusted to the specialist field in which the solicitor held itself out as practising. The Court of Appeal endorsed his conclusion that reasonable competence required more than sending the three standard letters and relying on tick-box responses.

2. The nature of a compensable services claim was not entirely straightforward. A claimant could recover where vibration white finger meant that he could no longer perform specified domestic tasks without assistance. The assistance could be gratuitously provided by relatives or friends. The first letter was, at best, unclear about the need for financial expenditure; the second was positively misleading; and the third naturally suggested that only an actual financial cost could be recovered. The letters also failed clearly to explain, until the third letter, that reduced ability rather than total inability was sufficient.

3. The solicitors possessed several indications that the claimant might have a valid services claim and might not understand his entitlement. His medical staging attracted a presumption that he needed assistance; he had reported difficulty with gardening; and two internal file notes identified a potential services or DIY claim. Nevertheless, he repeatedly declined to claim. Those circumstances called for a short discussion, face to face if practicable or otherwise by telephone, to explain the entitlement and establish whether the relevant facts applied.

4. There is no hard and fast rule that a solicitor need never test a client’s understanding. What must be done is a question of fact and degree. Here, the client was unsophisticated in the relevant field, the written advice was unclear, and there were clear indications that it might not have been understood. Existing telephone calls offered opportunities to clarify the matter without significant additional cost.

5. Financial constraints and the standardisation of high-volume claims handling did not make the required standard unrealistic. Such arrangements heightened the need for clear standard-form advice. A solicitor should not refrain from ensuring that advice is understood merely because clarification might generate a further fee.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The solicitors’ appeal was dismissed unanimously. The court upheld the finding that they had breached their duty by failing to ensure that the claimant understood his potential services claim.
2. Leeds County Court: His Honour Judge Gosnell upheld the professional-negligence claim and awarded £5,539.50 for the lost opportunity to pursue a services claim, producing an award of £6,655.22 with interest.