Jackie's story
Jackie hired a solicitor to claim for injuries after a car accident. Because she started the claim 33 months after the crash, her solicitor warned her there was little time to gather evidence before the three-year deadline. He recommended settling out of court, and Jackie agreed. However, she later felt she could have gotten a better result. When the solicitor disagreed with her complaint, she took it to the SLCC.
Jackie felt she had been pressured into a quick settlement because of the legal deadline. Although she agreed to it at the time, she later felt her solicitor should have done more to fight her corner.
She believed that by not going to court, she had been short-changed and had missed out on a much higher payout. Jackie felt her solicitor’s desire to settle quickly had cost her money, and she believed the firm should be held responsible for that loss.
We carefully reviewed the solicitor’s file and all the correspondence between Jackie and her solicitor.
The evidence showed that the solicitor had clearly explained:
• The strict three-year time limit for bringing the claim
• The risks and costs involved in going to court
• The challenges with the available medical and accident evidence
• The uncertainty of securing a higher award
The file also recorded that Jackie agreed to the settlement after these discussions.
The limited time available, and the evidence at hand, played a key role in the advice given.
We found that the solicitor had acted reasonably.
They worked within tight time limits, explained the options clearly, and managed expectations appropriately.
Because the evidence showed that Jackie had been properly advised and had agreed to the settlement, we could not uphold the complaint.
The settlement remained in place.
Key Takeaways
Personal injury claims have strict time limits. Delays can reduce the options available.
Our role is to assess whether the solicitor:
• Explained the risks, costs and deadlines clearly
• Considered the available evidence
• Acted reasonably and provided an appropriate standard of service
In this case, the evidence showed that they had.
Because she started the claim 33 months after the crash, her solicitor warned her there was little time to gather evidence before the three-year deadline. He recommended settling out of court, and Jackie agreed. However, she later felt she could have gotten a better result. When the solicitor disagreed with her complaint, she took it to the SLCC.
Jackie felt she had been pressured into a quick settlement because of the legal deadline. Although she agreed to it at the time, she later felt her solicitor should have done more to fight her corner.
She believed that by not going to court, she had been short-changed and had missed out on a much higher payout. Jackie felt her solicitor’s desire to settle quickly had cost her money, and she believed the firm should be held responsible for that loss.
We carefully reviewed the solicitor’s file and all the correspondence between Jackie and her solicitor.
- The strict three-year time limit for bringing the claim
- The risks and costs involved in going to court
- The challenges with the available medical and accident evidence
- The uncertainty of securing a higher award
The file also recorded that Jackie agreed to the settlement after these discussions.
The limited time available, and the evidence at hand, played a key role in the advice given.
We found that the solicitor had acted reasonably.
They worked within tight time limits, explained the options clearly, and managed expectations appropriately.
Because the evidence showed that Jackie had been properly advised and had agreed to the settlement, we could not uphold the complaint.
The settlement remained in place.
Personal injury claims have strict time limits. Delays can reduce the options available.
Our role is to assess whether the solicitor:
- Explained the risks, costs and deadlines clearly
- Considered the available evidence
- Acted reasonably and provided an appropriate standard of service
In this case, the evidence showed that they had.