Online wills – spinning a web of problems?

The issue that worries me is quality.

There is a difference between good customer care and good legal advice.  If you are buying a product, the product is reasonably easy to evaluate and customer service is one of the attributes of the product that makes it attractive or not.

Price is also a key element.  I’m happy to fly Ryanair for short trips as it’s cheap and I know the core service is good (their planes are safety checked by various bodies) but I know their customer service (how can I put this in a non-defamatory way) is to a different standard.  If I am buying conveyancing I need to be reasonably sure I will own my house at the end.  The conveyancer is insured so I am reasonably safe buying on price.

Will writing is more complex.  There have been a number of cases recently of non-qualified will writers getting it horribly wrong.  The person’s wishes would then not be carried out after their death.  I acted for some clients who had bought a Limited Liability Partnership Agreement off the internet.  It was fine in many ways, but it did not cover the one area that they needed – what to do if they fell out.  They did fall out and the agreement was of no use.  A good solicitor would have known that and made sure there was a deadlock clause in the agreement.

The idea of having lawyers check documents downloaded is clever and may well be a good half way house.  A good algorithm may well work through a number of complex what-if scenarios to import the right clauses to a will or a partnership agreement, but an experienced lawyer may be able to get there quicker.

I think simple services will be commoditised.  Consumers need to be sure they are getting what they think they are getting.  A will is not a tin of beans.

Website Owners Urged Not To Promise 100% Confidentiality To Their Customers

Keith Arrowsmith, Head of Intellectual Property & Media

It has become common practice for website owners to rely on standard terms and conditions when dealing with customers and advertisers on the internet.

At a recent court hearing, The Rugby Football Union (RFU) asked a judge to force ticket reseller Viagogo to reveal the details of customers who offered rugby match tickets for sale at more than their face value. The RFU argues that tickets to their matches are sold on the strict understanding that anyone who purchases one at more than its face value has no right to attend the game, and is therefore a trespasser at the rugby ground. The judge agreed, despite Viagogo promising its customers confidentiality.

I suggest web terms should be reviewed, to make sure promises of confidentiality take into account the overriding powers of the courts, or else customers may have the right to sue the website owner, even if the owner only reveals confidential information on the basis of a court order.

With the 2012 events fast approaching, ticket sales on the web are likely to be carefully monitored.

Sensible Judgement As Expert Witnesses Lose 400-Year-Old Immunity

Chris MacCafferty - Business Litigation & Professional Negligence Solicitor

I recently read in the Law Gazette that expert witnesses have lost their immunity from being sued over matters arising in the course of proceedings, following a landmark ruling.

The full article can be read here.

In my view this is a sensible Judgement. I guess those in favour of maintaining immunity would argue it ensures that Experts are prepared to give evidence in litigation. That said I do not think it will deter good experts from giving evidence. In my experience good experts are fully aware of their paramount duty to the Court and furthermore would not stake their professional reputation at risk for a case.

Whilst this Judgement opens the possibility of bringing professional negligence claims against Expert Witnesses, I agree with the other commentators that this is very unlikely to open a floodgate of claims. There will be claims however for those Experts who dabble and therefore should either not be holding themselves out as an expert or decline the instructions, or are not strong enough to uphold their own professional integrity.

For those good Experts out there I do not think they need to worry. The usual test for professional negligence will still apply and therefore if they are maintaining the standards of the reasonable competent expert in their field they have nothing to fear. That said they may want to check the Professional Indemnity Insurance to ensure they are adequately covered.

‘Offensive’ Manchester United sticker leaves fan in hot water

Stuart Page (Associate & Serious Crime Solicitor)

It was reported by the Guardian today that a Manchester United fan was told by police she faced legal action unless she removed part of a car sticker which teased Manchester City.

A local councillor passed on to police a complaint they had received from a resident about the wording of the joke and a neighbourhood team officer was sent to the motorist’s home in Stockport.

Mrs Webb-Lee and her City-supporting husband Graham were informed that the sticker was offensive under the terms of Section 5 of the Public Order Act. They were asked to either remove it or some of the letters within the swear word, and they did the latter. The full article can be read here.

A viable prosecution for the display of the sticker could be possible as it displayed the whole of the F word, however it would really depend if it was in the public interest to pursue such an action. Read more »

Is it fair for Legal Expense Insurers to dictate who represents their customers?

Chris MacCafferty - Business Litigation & Professional Negligence Solicitor

Linda Lee of the Law Society commented today that “current legislation provides that where an individual becomes engaged in litigation, they are entitled to a free choice of lawyer”.

She also stated that “it is our belief that insurance companies have wrongly interpreted the law as allowing them to impose restrictions for initial advice and assistance”.

The full article can be read here.

I agree with the comments by Linda Lee about the practises of Legal Expense Insurers. However, to be fair, in my experience this is not across the board. There are certain Insurers who do not seek to stick to the letter of the law in The Insurance Companies (Legal Expense Insurance) Regulations 1990 and they allow their customers to choose their Solicitor regardless of whether the proceedings or the inquiry have commenced.

Now ignoring the point that arguably the pre-action stages are part of the proceedings, it seems to me that the whole purpose of the EU Directive was to allow Insured Clients the freedom to choose their own solicitor. Whilst I appreciate the Insurers are not charities and are seeking to make a profit like any other business, surely it is neither good service nor complying with the duty of utmost good faith to insist on the Client using a Panel Firm when the driving factor is referral fees and/or reduced hourly rates. Read more »

No butts: Smokers liable for cigarette fines

Stuart Page (Associate)

I have been asked by a client today to advise on the position of flicking a cigarette butt out of the window of a car.

There have been lots of cases on this since the smoking ban was introduced in 2007 because people have to smoke outside and drop cigarette ends. Under the Environmental Protection Act any dropping of litter is an offence, arguments have been used such as biodegradable but these have been unsuccessful. Read more »

Lord Triesman, Steve Curry and Privacy Law- A Recipe for Disaster?

Rob Illidge (Marketing Execuitve)

It’s that time again, whether England are looking to host the world up or ‘bring it home’, there is always something in the media to scupper even the most optimistic England fan’s hopes and dreams.

I am talking of course about the recent news that FA Chairman Lord Triesman, has resigned from his position after being secretly recorded making bribery allegations about Russia and Spain’s attempts to secure the 2010 tournament.

It has since been alleged that The Mail on Sunday paid Melissa Jacobs, a ‘friend’ of Lord Treisman’s, to set up the meeting and recording. Cue a national scandal, the bid is ruined e.t.c…e.t.c

However, Steve Curry of The Daily Mail went one further yesterday morning whilst being interviewed by Sky Sports News, describing Mr Triesman as a “vain FA chief” who “wasn’t right for the bid anyway”. Surely he would not have made these comments had the recording not been published, it certainly is one way of kicking someone whilst they are down. Read more »

Tory self-defence proposals – a licence to kill?

Eimear McCartan (Trainee Solicitor)

The issue of what is reasonable in the defence of people or property has long been an emotional one, with strong views voiced both in support and opposition of the current law. Now the media spotlight is once again squarely focused upon this subject due to the Myleene Klass incident and the recent release of businessman Munir Hussain by the Court of Appeal. Read more »

Not just something and nothing

Jenny Stevenson (Personal Injury Solicitor)

According to the Manchester Evening News, compensation claims have cost Greater Manchester taxpayers more than £7.4 million in the last year. Read more »

Concerns over new claims process for Road Traffic Accidents

Maria Penny (Solicitor)

Following on from my previous comment, found here, I am concerned about access to justice as some firms may decide not to deal with straightforward claims with a value of less than £10,000 where liability is admitted. Read more »