As an officer of the court every attorney is held accountable to the standards set forth in the Rules of Professional Conduct. In bankruptcy court, attorneys are held to additional standards set forth in local bankruptcy law. A violation of the rules can result in harsh sanctions as attorney Richard Gates discovered in In re Gates, Misc. Case No. 18-00301-KRH (Bankr. E.D. Va. Apr. 5, 2018).

When the fallout from failed intellectual-property litigation collides with bankruptcy, the complexities may be dizzying enough, but when the emerging practices and imperatives of litigation financing are imposed on those complexities, the situation might be likened to three-dimensional chess. But in the court of one veteran bankruptcy judge, the complexities were penetrated to reveal that elementary errors and oversights can have decisive effects.

Because the number of unsatisfied clients who find themselves in bankruptcy are filing malpractice lawsuits against their pre-bankruptcy counsel is on the rise so, too, is the number of attorneys who find themselves on the defending end of such claims. Debtors and Trustees pursuing such claims, as well as attorneys defending against a bankruptcy debtor’s malpractice lawsuit, should consider the pros and cons of adjudicating these claims through an adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy court or via a state court action outside the bankruptcy realm.

This briefing is the second in a series of 3 briefings about the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 which we will be publishing on the run-up to it coming into force on 1 August 2016.

Click here if you would like to read the first briefing in the series.

The pros and cons every claims professional needs to know

Last year, the Ministry of Justice published its statistics for judicial and court activity in England and Wales for 2014. In this note, we take a look at the 2014 figures and highlight emerging litigation trends.

Our own enquiries into professional negligence claims for the first three quarters of 2015 show that claims numbers are likely to be broadly similar to those for 2014 and 2013. We intend to follow this note with an update after the Ministry of Justice publishes its own figures for the whole of 2015 later this year.

In a judgment handed down on 13 April 2018, Morgan J entirely dismissed a claim for £35m made against the former directors (and alleged shadow/de facto directors), and professional advisors of Instant Access Properties Limited (IAP).

Case alert - [2017] EWHC 3004 (Ch)

Court holds insurers are not entitled to a lien for unpaid premium due from insolvent insured

An insolvent company obtained damages in a professional negligence claim against its solicitors. That claim had been pursued with the benefit of various insurance arrangements (including ATE insurance). The insurers sought recovery of unpaid premium but the bankruptcy trustee of the company argued that they were only unsecured creditors in respect of the proceeds.

An insolvent company obtained damages in a professional negligence claim against its solicitors. That claim had been pursued with the benefit of various insurance arrangements (including ATE insurance). The insurers sought recovery of unpaid premium but the bankruptcy trustee of the company argued that they were only unsecured creditors in respect of the proceeds.

A professional negligence claim against trustees in bankruptcy alleging that they had unnecessarily prolonged the bankruptcies and caused the bankrupts’ loss failed. The Trustees had agreed not to take steps in the bankruptcies while Dr Oraki and her husband made repeated applications to set aside the judgment upon which their bankruptcy orders were made and annul their bankruptcies under s 282(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1986, which they eventually succeeded in doing.

Introduction

In the recent case of BPE Solicitors v Hughes-Holland [2017] UKSC 21, the Supreme Court unanimously re-affirmed and clarified the principle established by the House of Lords in South Australian Asset Management Corporation v York Montague [1996] UKHL 10 (the “SAAMCO principle”). This article explains the clarification and the practical consequences it has for those seeking professional advice.

The SAAMCO principle