Client’s best interests, law firms and advice on time limits

Print This Post

21 October 2016


Paul-Bennett for Legal Futures

Paul-Bennett, partner at Aaron & Partners

When acting for clients we are always aware of any relevant time limits of their case. In common with most firms, we use our various systems to record and flag up the time limits to ourselves and advise the client of them in our initial review of their case. However, if clients need to seek alternative representation due to a conflict emerging then the time limits of the claim should be made clear.

The recent case of The Governing Body of Sheredes School v Mr B Davies UKEAT/0196/16/JOJ served as reminder of advising clients of the time limits of their claim in all circumstances including when your firm has told them to seek alternative representation.

In this case, the solicitors told the claimant on 8 October 2015 to seek new representation in relation to a claim for unfair dismissal. They failed to inform the claimant that he had until 25 October 2015 to present his claim.

On 14 October 2015 the SRA intervened at the solicitors firm. The firm was prevented from contacting any of its clients and the SRA took possession of all of its papers. The claimant was unaware of this intervention.

On 5 November 2015 the claimant visited another firm of solicitors who advised him that his claim for unfair dismissal was out of time. The claimant proceeded to present his claim without legal assistance on 10 November 2015.

The Tribunal initially extended the time limit for bringing the claim on the basis that the SRA intervention was a ‘special reason’ which made it not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. However, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that it was due to the fault of the original solicitors that the claim was brought out of time because they failed to inform the claimant of the time limit. Therefore, the time limit was not extended because if the claimant had been informed of the time limit then he would have presented his claim in time regardless of the intervention.

This seemingly simple failure to advise the client breaches the SRA’s Code of Conduct (2011) and could result in disciplinary sanction being imposed against the solicitor in question. This highlights the importance of ensuring that the client is fully advised even when told to seek new representation for whatever reason.

For practical “how to” advice on working within the Code of Conduct (2011) or being a compliance officer for legal practice, contact our professional practices team for advice, training and consultancy services.

Paul Bennett
Partner
Professional practices and employment law
Aaron and Partners LLP
Email: paul.bennett@aaronandpartners.com
Direct Dial: 01743 453685



Associate News is provided by Legal Futures Associates.
Find out about becoming an Associate



Leave a comment

* Denotes required field

All comments will be moderated before posting. Please see our Terms and Conditions

Legal Futures Blog

Injury Prevention Day and the agenda for reform

Carson Kaye, Solicitors, London

This year APIL’s Injury Prevention Day falls as we anticipate a return of the Civil Liability Bill in the upcoming parliamentary session, as well as the resurrection of plans to increase the small claims court limit. APIL originally instigated Injury Prevention Day in 2015 on the third Wednesday of August as an occasion to highlight what our association is about, and to give people a better understanding of our values. A key part of APIL’s remit is to promote safety standards and reduce avoidable harm. This year, Injury Prevention Day and the agenda for reform are connected.

August 16th, 2017