No Immunity from Suit for Advocates

Arthur J S Hall & Co (A Firm) v Simons and Associated Cases (TLR 21 July H of L)

The House of Lords last considered the rationale for the immunity of an advocate from suit in Rondel v Worsley ([1969] 1 AC 191). Public policy was not immutable and there had been great changes in the law of negligence, the functioning of the legal profession, the administration of justice and public perceptions. The point of departure was that in general English law provided a remedy in damages for a person who had suffered injury as a result of professional negligence. It followed that any exception which denied such a remedy required a sound justification. Having considered all the arguments relied upon in Rondel v Worsley in the conditions of today, they no longer carried the degree of conviction which would be necessary to sustain the immunity. The judges had created immunity and the judges should say that the grounds for maintaining it no longer existed. Three members of the seven judge court dissented from the majority to the extent of saying that the immunity was still required in the public interest in the administration of justice in relation to criminal proceedings. However, the majority decision was that in the light of modern conditions it was now clear that it is no longer in the public interest in the administration of justice that advocates should have immunity from suit for negligence for acts concerned with the conduct of either civil or criminal litigation.