I have some rebuttal for the points put forward by the speaker for the proposition. The opposing speaker stated that clients don’t know what they are consenting for. I disagree with this because in practice informed consent is highly spoken of in court and as previously discussed, rules are set out as to what constitutes informed consent. He recited the Lewis SSDT 2008 case in an incorrect reference where he made the fundamental error of stating the solicitor failed in his duty to represent both parties. However, this case failed specifically because what the lawyer did, did not constitute informed consent.

He also mentions that informed consent is a threat for the fiduciary duty. As previously stated however, the duty only arises from the instructions of the client which should be identified as this duty may be confused for a contractual obligation rather than a fiduciary duty. He uses the Wernham case by agreeing with my motion, stating lawyers can act in a double capacity. This was the case in Notary Public I therefore fail to see the strength in this argument.

Finally, he mentions that clients may not give the consent, thus the solicitor would be breaching his duties. If the client does not give the consent, the solicitor will cease to act for the client and advice them to seek independent legal advice.