Choice of lawyer

EU law, as implemented by regulation in the UK, requires legal expenses insurers to allow the assured a free choice of lawyer in order to eliminate the risk of a conflict of interest between the insurers and the assured, particularly where the assured’s claim is against a policyholder insured by the same insurers. The measures have been construed widely, and apply even if there is no conflict of interest. Brown-Quinn and Anr v Equity Syndicate Management Ltd [2011] EWHC 2661 (Comm) is the first case to discuss the issue of whether insurers who have their own panel solicitors can insist that the assured does not appoint solicitors who charge higher rates. Unsurprisingly Burton J ruled in favour the assured, subject to the restriction that the fees charged by the chosen solicitors were reasonable.

Brown-Quinn: the facts

The proceedings consisted of three test cases brought by the claimants, clients of a single firm of solicitors, WD, against the claimants’ BTE insurers. Each of the claimants wished to bring employment or discrimination claims using WD as their solicitors. The insurers maintained their own panel of solicitors, and Burton J assumed (without seeing actual figures) that panel solicitors offered lower fees in return for the volume of work which the insurers could provide to them. WD was not on the panels of the insurers. One claimant (CJ) instructed WD from the outset, whereas the other claimants (CBQ and JB) were each initially referred to panel solicitors but subsequently opted to transfer their instructions to WD following the move of their claims handler to WD.