Choice of lawyer

The Legal Expenses Directive, Council Directive 87/344/EEC, implemented into English law by the Insurance Companies (Legal Expenses Insurance) Regulations 1990, SI 1990/1159, is designed to protect the assured in the event of a conflict of interest created for the insurers where the find themselves obliged to fund the assured’s proceedings but at the same time are also the liability insurers of the person against whom the proceedings have been brought. This problem is resolved by requiring the insurers to operate a separate organisation, or by imposing a ‘Chinese wall’ so that there is no risk of any conflict, or by permitting the assured a free choice of the lawyers who are to press the case on his behalf. The question in Eschig v UNIQA Sachversicherung AG [2009] EUECJ Case C-199/08 was whether the right of the assured to insist upon his right to choose a lawyer operates where his claim is one of many and forms a part of a class action.

Eschig: the facts

Dr Eschig, an Austrian national, along with several thousand others invested with two companies, collectively referred to as AMIS. The AMIS companies became insolg the investvent, leavinors with substantial losses. Dr Eschig instructed lawyers SR to represent him in civil and criminal proceedings against AMIS and its controllers, and also against the Austrian Government for shortcomings in its regulation of AMIS.