[Lockout]

So I've got a paralegal job interview next week and they said as part of the interview I have to do a written exercise.

A friend of mine also had an interview at this firm and did the same task, she was asked to act on behalf of Mr Brown, whose car had been hit and he said it was the fault of a second party. But the firm cannot contact Mr Brown so you have to write to the second party, asking for additional information.

So my questions are, what should be included in the letter?

And how should it begin? Should it be... "Dear Mr X, I am acting on behalf of Mr Brown who claims you damaged his car on *date*..."

[Meee123]

Congrats on the job offer and good luck with the interview!

[helpfulcynic]

Interesting...

How and why would you act on behalf of an individual from whom you are unable to receive instructions?

[nulli tertius]

(Original post by helpfulcynic)
Interesting...

How and why would you act on behalf of an individual from whom you are unable to receive instructions?

Because your real client is Mr Brown's insurance company. Now his car has been fixed at his own insurer's expence, he has no interest in fulfilling his contractual duty to assist his insurer.

[helpfulcynic]

(Original post by nulli tertius)
Because your real client is Mr Brown's insurance company. Now his car has been fixed at his own insurer's expence, he has no interest in fulfilling his contractual duty to assist his insurer.

Are you sure? The OP stated 'on behalf of Mr Brown'. Not on behalf of the insurance company.

I note that I am quite picky about this sort of thing having done some fairly annoying niche professional indemnity city insurance work (not as a fee-earner, but nonetheless...), and thus make strong distinctions between my client and my client's customer. There are often tensions between these parties!

[nulli tertius]

(Original post by helpfulcynic)
Are you sure? The OP stated 'on behalf of Mr Brown'. Not on behalf of the insurance company.

I note that I am quite picky about this sort of thing having done some fairly annoying niche professional indemnity city insurance work (not as a fee-earner, but nonetheless...), and thus make strong distinctions between my client and my client's customer. There are often tensions between these parties!

Yes. When the insurer exercises rights of subrogation, the technical client is the insured (and any proceedings are issued in the insured's name) but the insurer is entitled to control the litigation in the insured's name without the insured's participation and indeed against the insured's express instructions.

[helpfulcynic]

(Original post by nulli tertius)
Yes. When the insurer exercises rights of subrogation, the technical client is the insured (and any proceedings are issued in the insured's name) but the insurer is entitled to control the litigation in the insured's name without the insured's participation and indeed against the insured's express instructions.

Of course, but none of which is in any way made pertinent through the OP's comments. In fact everything you have said is a supposition that you are indeed acting for the insurance company.

The OP stated quite clearly "was asked to act on behalf of Mr Brown." One would assume, were it an insurance firm that was subrogating, that would be mentioned.

I stand by my initial question/statement and I would venture that anyone who asserted the same would do rather well in a job interview, for the cojones if nothing else.

[nulli tertius]

(Original post by helpfulcynic)
Of course, but none of which is in any way made pertinent through the OP's comments. In fact everything you have said is a supposition that you are indeed acting for the insurance company.

The OP stated quite clearly "was asked to act on behalf of Mr Brown." One would assume, were it an insurance firm that was subrogating, that would be mentioned.

I stand by my initial question/statement and I would venture that anyone who asserted the same would do rather well in a job interview, for the cojones if nothing else.

Of course it is a supposition, but you posed the question:

How and why would you act on behalf of an individual from whom you are unable to receive instructions?

and I have answered your question, not the OPs.


Letters in these terms written on the instructions of insurers are not at all uncommon.

[helpfulcynic]

(Original post by nulli tertius)
Of course it is a supposition, but you posed the question:



and I have answered your question, not the OPs.


Letters in these terms written on the instructions of insurers are not at all uncommon.

Well, disagree strongly on the final conclusion but fair cop on the initial point. Either way, none of that would ever even think about passing risk for me.

Fun to joust though. Right, I'm off home, take care :-D