High Court: Solicitors Owe Enhanced Duties to Unsophisticated Clients (Negligence Claims Against Lawyers)

This landmark judgment (Lewis v Cunningtons [2023] EWHC 822 (KB)) establishes that solicitors owe heightened duties to unsophisticated clients who lack knowledge of legal processes and financial matters. The ruling contrasts sharply with previous decisions like Minkin v Landsberg [2015] EWCA Civ 1152, where sophisticated clients were held to higher standards of self-reliance. The case reinforces obligations under paragraph 3.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, which requires practitioners to “consider and take account of your client’s attributes, needs and circumstances”. 

This decision highlights the critical importance of identifying vulnerable clients early and adapting legal services accordingly, as outlined in the Law Society’s guidance on meeting the needs of vulnerable clients. The judgment also underscores how client sophistication affects the scope of reasonably incidental advice that solicitors must provide, particularly in complex financial matters where professional negligence claims may arise from inadequate guidance.

Case Background: Lewis v Cunningtons

Joanne Lewis, a care assistant, instructed Cunningtons Solicitors to act for her during divorce proceedings from her police officer husband. The initial client care letter acknowledged her husband’s pension, valued at over £540,000, as the most significant marital asset. Despite this knowledge, the solicitors advised Lewis that they could comment on the fairness of any settlement without full financial disclosure from her husband.

Lewis subsequently negotiated directly with her husband and agreed to accept £62,000 on a “clean break” basis. The solicitors asked her to sign a disclaimer stating they could not advise on the settlement’s fairness without complete disclosure. However, His Honour Judge Coe KC found that the firm possessed sufficient information to warn Lewis that the proposed settlement was “exorbitantly in the husband’s favour” and that a pension-sharing order would likely be awarded if the matter proceeded to court.

The court accepted Lewis’s characterisation of herself as an unsophisticated user of legal services with no knowledge of financial affairs who had been bullied and intimidated by her ex-husband. Judge Coe noted that Lewis had been in a desperate situation after the end of her 23-year marriage and that her husband’s police pension was the largest asset that should have been carefully considered by the firm.

DOWNLOAD THE PDF JUDGMENT HERE:

Key Findings in Lewis v Cunningtons

Rejection of the Limited Retainer Defence

Judge Coe distinguished the case from Minkin v Landsberg, concluding this was not a “limited retainer” case where the client sought only drafting services. Unlike Mrs Minkin, who was a chartered accountant with sophisticated financial knowledge, Lewis did not approach the solicitors with pre-agreed settlement terms. The client care letter was headed “in relation to your divorce and financial matters,” indicating a broader retainer than mere document preparation.

The court rejected the solicitors’ argument that they were only retained to embody settlement terms already agreed between the parties. Judge Coe found that the agreement was reached sometime after the solicitors were retained, distinguishing the case from the limited retainer scenario established in Minkin.

Enhanced Duty Based on Client Characteristics

The judgment established that “the characteristics of the claimant should have informed the scope of the defendant’s duty to her, and increased it so as to require the defendant to give her clear advice on the basis of the information it had”. This reflects the principle established in cases like Pickersgill v Riley [2004] UKPC 14, where Lord Scott recognised that “the scope of the duty may vary depending on the characteristics of the client, in so far as they are apparent to the solicitor”.

The court found Lewis to be “an entirely honest witness, doing her best to help the court” and accepted that she was unsophisticated and vulnerable. She had told the solicitors that she was being bullied and intimidated by her husband, factors that should have informed the scope of their duty. This contrasts with cases involving sophisticated clients where courts have limited solicitors’ obligations to provide unsolicited commercial advice.

Breach of Professional Standards

Judge Coe found it was “a clear breach not to give this advice but instead to require the Claimant to sign a disclaimer on a premise which she concluded was incorrect”. The court determined that the solicitors possessed sufficient information to advise against the settlement without requiring full financial disclosure. One solicitor conceded during oral evidence that she could conclude an earlier offer of £30,000 was unfair, while another accepted that available information suggested the husband’s pension pot might be worth £1 million.

The judgment emphasises that solicitors cannot simply rely on disclaimers to avoid their professional obligations when dealing with vulnerable clients. This aligns with regulatory guidance that professionals must ensure clients understand the information provided and are in a position to make informed decisions about available options.

Implications of Lewis v Cunningtons

Expanded Duties to Vulnerable Clients

The decision significantly expands solicitors’ duties when representing unsophisticated clients, particularly in complex financial matters. This aligns with the SRA‘s emphasis on considering client attributes, needs, and circumstances as set out in paragraph 3.4 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors. The ruling reinforces that vulnerability can arise from various factors including mental health issues, intimidation, or simply lack of familiarity with legal processes.

The judgment reflects broader regulatory trends emphasising protection of vulnerable clients under the Equality Act 2010 and Mental Capacity Act 2005. Legal professionals must now consider whether clients need additional support to understand advice and make informed decisions, particularly where there are indicators of vulnerability such as depression, medication use, or domestic abuse.

Impact on Professional Negligence Claims

The decision provides a roadmap for successful professional negligence claims against solicitors who fail to recognise client vulnerability. Claimants can now argue that their unsophisticated status warranted enhanced duties beyond those owed to commercially experienced clients.

The ruling also impacts the assessment of causation in professional negligence cases. Judge Coe rejected the solicitors’ causation defence, finding that Lewis would not have agreed to the settlement if properly advised about its unfairness. This demonstrates that courts will carefully scrutinise whether vulnerable clients would have acted differently with appropriate guidance.

Regulatory and Compliance Considerations

The decision reinforces obligations under the SRA Standards and Regulations 2019, particularly requirements to provide competent service and act in clients’ best interests. Solicitors must now implement robust systems to identify vulnerable clients and adapt their services accordingly. Failure to meet these standards may result in complaints to the Legal Ombudsman, which received over 93,000 contacts in nine months from April 2023, representing a 13% increase from the previous year.

Defending Professional Negligence Claims

When facing professional negligence allegations involving unsophisticated clients, solicitors should focus on demonstrating that their retainer was appropriately scoped and that they provided reasonable advice within their expertise Clear documentation of the retainer’s limits, preferably in writing, remains crucial despite the Lewis decision showing that disclaimers alone may not suffice.

Forensic analysis of client communications can help demonstrate that the client was not as unsophisticated as claimed or that they received appropriate advice for their level of understanding Expert evidence comparing the defendant’s conduct to that of a reasonably competent practitioner in similar circumstances becomes particularly important when client characteristics are disputed.

Early assessment of causation issues is essential, as claimants must prove that they would have acted differently if given the allegedly missing advice. Solicitors should gather evidence about the client’s motivations and whether they were determined to proceed regardless of professional warnings. Documentary evidence showing the client’s understanding of risks and their reasons for proceeding can be crucial in defending causation.

Effective case management includes engaging with regulatory bodies early if complaints arise, as demonstrated by the SRA’s guidance on meeting vulnerable clients’ needs. Proactive compliance with professional standards can help mitigate regulatory risks even where civil claims proceed. 

Need Legal Support on Solicitor Negligence or Client Care Failures?

Our expert solicitors and barristers advise on professional negligence claims, with a particular focus on failures to properly advise vulnerable or unsophisticated clients. Whether you are seeking redress for poor legal advice or defending a claim arising from alleged breaches of professional standards, we offer clear, strategic guidance tailored to your circumstances. Contact us today for experienced legal representation.