ADVOCATE'S IMMUNITY SUMMARILY DEFEATS CLAIM ALLEGING NEGLIGENT ADVICE TO SETTLE

Stephen Warne on professional negligence, regulation and discipline around the world Advocates’ immunity summarily defeats claim alleging negligent advice to settle June 13th, 2014 · Comments (1) I once spent a long time writing an article called ‘Compromise of litigation and lawyers’ liability: Forensic immunity, litigation estoppels, the rule against collateral attack, confidentiality and the modified duty of care’ which was published in the Torts Law Journal when it was edited by Professor Luntz ((2002) 10 TLJ 167), and I acted for the Victorian Bar in relation to D’Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid and instructed in the hearing of that case in the High Court. So a case like Stillman v Rushbourne [2014] NSWSC 730 is fairly well up my alley. Three key areas of uncertainty about the scope of and operation of the immunity post-D’Orta have been: 1. Whether advice to settle which results in settlement can be said to affect the conduct of the cause and so be within the immunity; 2. Whether the immunity extends to intentional wrongs; and 3. When it is appropriate to grant summary judgment by reference to the immunity. Relatively recently, those issues have become relatively authoritatively resolved in favour of lawyers. In Stillman, Davies J summarily dismissed a claim against solicitors that they negligently advised settlement and intentionally and wrongfully coerced the plaintiff into settling. The various authorities on these questions are usefully rehearsed and consolidated by his Honour, making this judgment a useful one-stop shop on these issues. In relation to allegations of intentional wrongdoing, see also Young v Hones (No.2) [2013] NSWSC 1429. As to the desirability of dealing with an advocates’ immunity defence at an early stage, including in a summary judgment application, see also Donnellan v Woodland [2012] NSWCA 433, a decision of a bench of five.