LCRO 242/2014 HW v DL [pdf, 122 KB]
...have enabled that lawyer to be sure that Mr TM was not being disadvantaged. By requiring Mr TM to take independent advice the respondent would then have been free to offer full and frank advice to Mr HW, if only to ensure that he was sufficiently protected to enable the obligations to the bank to be met so that the property was not at risk of being seized by the bank pursuant to its security. [43] The respondent has failed in his duties to the parties and is in breach of r 6.1 of...