The recent Court of Appeal decision in Spire Property Development LLP and another v Withers LLP helps clarify the scope of the duty owed by a solicitor when providing legal advice outside of an agreed retainer and also serves as a useful reminder to solicitors on how to avoid the risk of litigation when responding to informal enquiries.
At the root of the Law of Costs lies the indemnity principle. If a solicitor acts for a client in a case and wins, the losing opponent’s liability to pay the winner’s costs cannot exceed the sum which the client is liable to pay the solicitor. This is a principle which goes back to the days of Queen Victoria (see Harold v Smith). Thus, if the solicitor says to the client, “Don’t worry, it won’t cost you a penny because we shall collect our costs from your opponent when you win”, there are no costs to indemnify and by operation of the indemnity principle, the loser’s liability is nil. On the other hand, if the solicitor says “Don’t worry, this will not cost you more than £10,000”, the client has an obligation to pay, which means that on a win, the loser will be liable to pay up to (but no more) than £10,000 in costs if the court makes a costs order in favour of the client.
The Frankfurt offices of Deutsche Bank and its asset management unit, DWS, were recently raided by the German police investigating claims of greenwashing. Within days, DWS’ chief executive, Asoka Woehrmann, had stepped down and investigations continue in the US and Germany. Right now, this seems to be an extreme example of how greenwashing claims can play out for financial services firms. But, this may be just the start and financial services firms have much to think on in respect of their ESG (environmental, social and governance) responsibilities. In this blog, we consider how greenwashing claims pose a risk in the context of ESG or sustainable funds.
