Linklaters loses £37m Levicom negligence claim

  • Print
  • Comments (9)

Readers' comments (9)

  • Does anyone know whether it was one of the regional offices of Linklaters that was involved in the advice?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Is this fully covered by their insurance, I wonder? It comes down to about EUR 100k per partner if it is not... I would hate to be the person who gave the advice at the next partner's meeting!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The advice was given by a team of litigators at One Silk Street.
    PPP, your query about insurance cover betrays a degree of naivete about the level of insurance cover held by large City firms. I would hazard a guess that Linklaters for the policy year to which this claim attaches (and, indeed, for at least the last 20 policy years) will be well north of £100m each and every claim. While I suspect Linklaters will have a substantial deductible (although that may be in the aggregate and could have been eroded or exhausted), I think the chances of the hat having to be passed around at the next partners' conference are minimal.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Well done Levicom!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous | 12-May-2010 12:48 pm: Your smugness suggests you're probably a Links partner yourself, so I hope for your sake you're right. Still pretty embarrassing to be sued by your client for negligence and lose though, eh? Frankly, you have to wonder what Levicom were thinking of going to Links for litigation advice in the first place though.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • A 70% chance of success means there is also a 30% chance of failure. If the client is advised that a course of action has a 70% chance of succeeding and the client takes that course of action, which results in failure, that result doesn't mean that the initial advice of 70% chance of success was incorrect or negligent. There is clearly more to the story than is related in this news item.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It's an LLP, so why would partners need to pay $100,000 each?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Bob,
    Being an LLP doesn't mean you can just ignore your debtors (unless you go bust, which is when the "Limited Liability" bit kicks in).
    Do you work in Links' corporate department by any chance?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 70% is not good odds it is the bare minimum that one would proceed on. It is given so that an insurance company will back the litigation.

    Am very surprised that they proceeded on those odds. one would be looking for at least 85% even then... negotiation for settlement.
    the fact is a Magic Circle group...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (9)