What is “independent legal advice”?.

When and why is independent legal advice (“ILA”) required? This can seem a bit of a mystery to the individuals who are being required to obtain this by a bank.

A bank or lender, when put on enquiry as to the possibility of undue influence or misrepresentation to an individual by a third party will usually insist they take ILA.

For example, where a spouse offers to stand as guarantor for the debts of their partner or their company or if a loan is being made from the “bank of Mum and Dad” to assist with a house purchase and there is a bank mortgage. 

During the 1990s, many people who had given guarantees found themselves sued by banks to make good on their financial promises. We at Mundays defended a number of individuals in those circumstances where it was quite clear our clients had signed up to their obligations without legal advice and had been blissfully unaware of the full implications, including the loss of their family homes.  There were many similar cases at the time. In one, Barclays Bank Limited v O’Brien, the Supreme Court, (then the House of Lords), establishing the principle that a bank or lender will be fixed with constructive notice of presumed undue influence in certain circumstances, such as those outlined above. In those situations, the bank would be unable to enforce its security unless before taking that security, it had made sure the individual involved had not been subject to undue influence. The one clear route to do that is to ensure that the individual had taken ILA in accordance with the guide rule set out in the later House of Lords case of Etridge.

The bank will require ILA to ensure it is protected from the risk of being unable to enforce its guarantee or security; to protect its own position.

When a solicitor gives a certificate to a bank that ILA has been given, the bank might have a right of action against the solicitor if the solicitor has not given the advice properly.  A solicitor cannot simply sign a certificate to say that ILA has been given therefore unless it has indeed been provided in accordance with the guidelines in the Etridge case.   

The Etridge rules require ILA meetings to be face to face, not over the phone, and be without the presence of anybody else in the transaction involved. This is to ensure the individual fully understands their obligations both obvious in the immediate documentation they are signing, but also incorporated in what are usually references to many other documents, depending upon the nature of the transaction. 

It is not the role of the solicitor giving ILA to analyse the commercial viability of the transaction.  Whether or not a client has an appetite for that risk is clearly their personal decision.

There must be sufficient discussion at the meeting for the solicitor to be sure that the client receiving the ILA understands their legal obligations and, most importantly, what happens if things go wrong.

Although the process of having an independent legal adviser may seem lengthy and cumbersome, the Supreme Court has devised it as a protection for individuals.  Sometimes even those who do not view themselves as vulnerable discover as a result of the ILA process that they had not appreciated the implications of signing up

Whilst the Bank will request it for its own protection, it is therefore a useful step to protect the individual, as the Supreme Court intended.

It should be seen as a positive tool to prompt a review of what protection may need to be put in place before or at the same time as the arrangements that are being contemplated.  For example, life assurance or key man insurance may assist. Is there a need to ensure wills, Powers of Attorney and any corporate documentation are in line with the potential outcomes and would allow the situation to be managed in the event of death or disability?

ILA advice sessions allow the consideration and mitigation of potentially negative outcomes as an insurance while planning for the success or positive expectations that are usually the motivating factor  triggering the ILA scenario in the first place.

For more information please contact Fiona McAllister, Partner in our Corporate & Commercial team.

The contents of this article are intended as guidance for readers. It can be no substitute for specific advice. Consequently we cannot accept responsibility for this information, errors or matters affected by subsequent changes in the law, or the content of any website referred to in this article. © Mundays LLP.

Insights.

You Better Get This Part-year Started
15th August, 2019

Andrew Knorpel looks at how potential liabilities for holiday pay for part-year workers have increased as a result of a recent case.

‘Non-reliance’ clauses examined
14th August, 2019

Fiona Moss examines non-reliance clauses following a recent Court of Appeal case.

Mundays make a splash at Weybridge Community Regatta
6th August, 2019

Two brave teams of rowers took part in the Weybridge Community Regatta organised by Weybridge Rowing Club.

Summer Surge towards Employment Law Reform
1st August, 2019

Céline Winham discusses the surge in recent Government consultations in relation to various employment issues and considering employment law reform.