Quote ="Lord God Jose Mourinho"It wasn't the first meeting that got the solicitors firm in trouble. She was actually going against what the first solicitor told her. It was the partner in the law firm who made the error and made them liable:
"A few weeks later, Padden took the relevant documents to Bevan Ashford’s Exeter office, where partner Gary Mackay witnessed their signature and certified that the consequences had been explained."'"
I agree that he was complicit, but it seems like he just acted as a document witnesser, perhaps assuming that he could rely on whatever advice had been given by the trainee and not looking into it. However it very clearly was a combination of the first meeting, when insufficient advice was given, and the second, when dangerous assumptions were made, that got them into trouble. Both were at fault, the trainee for not having the skill to see a traincrash coming, and the partner for not supervising/reviewing properly.
Anyway, in law, it was the first (and the second) meeting that got them into trouble, cos the court so found:
Quote Judge Vosper found that it inevitably followed that there was a breach of duty, both by Ms. Shinner on 28 March and by Mr. Mackay on 10 April, in failing to evaluate the risk of the prosecution of her husband that Mrs Padden, above all else, sought to avoid.'"
And perhaps more to the point,
Quote It is not necessary to say more about the breach of duty found by the Judge, as the defendants do not seek to contest that finding on this appeal.'"
Mackay could have nipped the trouble in the bud, had he been sufficiently on his toes, but from the claimant's perspective (and in law) the advice of both Shinner and Mackay made the firm liable. Shinner, if you like, set the train running. Mackay failed to apply the brakes. You are free to have your own view, but you are in disagreement with the Judge, the solicitors themselves, and the Court of Appeal.
