By the way | Shakespearean outcomes

The law is not a precise science. Advising clients at the beginning of a new case as to its potential value/cost to them can be tricky. Playing on the defendants' team as I do can often mean that I am presented with a document describing itself as a 'Letter of Claim' which makes a number of vague statements and then boldly claims £x on no fathomable basis.

Some claimant firms will make a real effort to set out the basis on which the defendant is said to be at fault. They may also explain the number-crunching formula which has led to the amount demanded. What they often skirt around, however, is the complex area of causation, the third element which must be present in all negligence claims.

Another significant unknown quantity is of course the human beings involved in the cases. Witnesses can be pesky, asserting at the outset that they are certain of their story but becoming reticent when it comes to signing a typed version of events. Even those who remain confident on paper can swerve wildly in the witness box when faced with the opposition's bulldog of a barrister. I have seen even expert witnesses crack, capitulating without warning to the view of the other side's persuasive equivalent.

Then of course there are the judges themselves. Depending on how the lay and expert witnesses perform on the day, coupled with the barristers' presentation of the case and the solicitors' preparation for it, there is always more than one possible outcome at trial. Some cases have 'all or nothing' results for all parties, but most will have more of a sliding scale of options, towards which a number of factors will contribute. Might it assist if the judge boiled his eggs to perfection before setting out for court that morning, or hinder matters if he stubbed his toe in the shower?

Mind games

Tactical mind games and posturing are also a vital component of most firms' armoury. You have to play your cards with conviction though, as continual threats to issue proceedings fast become tedious when they are blatantly never going to be followed up. Too many solicitors assert that their latest settlement offer is 'final' just weeks before they make another one. Please stop it.

My long-standing favourites are, however, the opponents who like to rewrite history. Years ago I encountered a Newcastle-based lawyer with whom I could converse in a professional and pleasant tone before she would go away and draft a fax containing all of the clever comments which she must have wished she'd said, but in fact hadn't.

This week I've been chased by a firm which stated in writing that the seven days which elapsed between their request for copies of our client's documents and our provision of them was going to cause untold delay to the litigation timetable, in respect of which we are, incidentally, less than two months from trial. What they forgot to mention in black and white, however, was that it had taken them an entire year to ask us for any documents. Once I'd peeled myself off the ceiling I set them straight, in writing of course, as one has to engage in like-for-like combat. I do so detest backside-covering, but when you've been subjected to a direct attack you are strategically left with little choice.

Wending my way slowly to my point, as in most jobs there is wide scope for solicitors to make mistakes. These can range from losing original papers to missing a limitation deadline which ends your client's case before it has begun. Firms all have internal complaints procedures, and in certain cases clients will be happy with an apology. Some issues will not be easily resolved, however, and in extreme cases the client may end up suing their former advisors for professional negligence.

Crashing LeO's website

The middle ground between the two above extremes covers those clients who take their complaint to the Legal Ombudsman. As of last month, the Ombudsman is publishing online its list of received complaints every quarter. From April to July this year, they apparently received complaints about 770 firms. The move has reignited the long-standing debate as to whether publication of such information will truly assist consumers to select a quality lawyer, or whether it will simply skew public opinion against those firms which handle a multitude of private client cases.

So, will we all rush to crash the website every three months while feverishly hoping that our own firm's name does not appear, or are we much more likely to browse it at our leisure over a coffee with a view to seeing whether any of our competitors are having a bad time of it?

It is at least much less partisan that the dramatically named website 'Solicitors from Hell', closed down last year but now resurrected with a.net address and featuring a recording of an interview with the Law Society's chief executive. At one point you could also still buy a mug featuring a quote from Henry VI Part 2 '“ 'Let's kill all the lawyers'. Actually, let's not.