A rough guide to personal injury and clinical negligence litigation (and how it goes wrong) for professional indemnity lawyers

Professional Negligence claims against solicitors for mismanaged personal or medical injury litigation bring a number of challenges for the Professional Negligence specialist, as the process and approach in such claims is often unfamiliar.  Hailsham Chambers, with its established, market-leading reputation across both areas, is in a unique position to assist.

With this in mind, we have launched a new series of insight articles which will explore the quirks and vagaries of Personal and Medical Injury litigation.

  • Market Overview

    This first issue, by Richard Beaty, provides an overview of where and why Professional Negligence claims in this area might arise.

  • Expert Evidence

    The second issue, by Nicholas Pilsbury, considers which expert to instruct and when, coordinating and assessing expert evidence and funding.

  • Under-settlement and Quantum

    The third issue, by Thomas Crockett, provides a rough guide to Personal Injury and Clinical Negligence Litigation for Professional Indemnity Lawyers.

  • Documentary and Witness Evidence

    The fourth issue, by Nicholas Pilsbury, provides a rough guide to Personal Injury and Clinical Negligence (and how it goes wrong) for Professional Indemnity Lawyers.

  • Limitation

    The fifth issue, by Thomas Crockett, explores how questions of limitation in underlying clinical negligence or personal injury cases are frequently the subject matter for consequent professional indemnity litigation.

  • Costs

    The sixth issue, by David Jukes, provides an overview of the proper management of costs and costs risks as an essential part of a personal injury practitioners’ toolkit.

  • The Settlement Process

    The Seventh issue, by Henry Bankes-Jones, explores how any Medical Negligence or Personal Injury Claim in a Professional Negligence context, whether lost or under-settled, is always contingent upon supportive expert evidence, as well as what a Claimant “would have done” but for the negligence.



    Hailsham Chambers