Here it is. The abstract of the article of greatest interest is as follows:
‘When he delivered his judgment in Pritchard Joyce & Hinds v Batcup [2008] EWHC 20 (QB) Underhill J said that he had striven to avoid hindsight and had reminded himself that the central issue he had to decide was whether any reasonably competent barrister would have given the advice that it was alleged should have been given by S and B (leading and junior counsel), not what he himself, or indeed, any other particular barrister in S and B’s position, might have advised. He found that S and B had been negligent in failing to advise their clients of the time limit applicable to a potential claim against their former solicitors Wellers.’
See also:
- Role of professional conduct rules in conflict of duties injunctions
- Latest on whether barrister-litigants can recover legal fees for their own work
- Barrister claims immunity too late to get costs; regretted settlement suit fails
- Unrepresented barristers’ entitlement to costs in cases involving them personally
- NSW solicitor who didn’t pay counsel’s fees struck back on
