Clients often do not realise that they have legal expenses insurance. Any insurance might include cover for legal expenses but it is most commonly found in domestic policies. Sometimes it is included in the policy and sometimes as a relatively low cost ‘bolt on’ paid for at the same time as the rest of the premium. So if you have a potential legal claim of any sort it is always worth checking your insurance. Legal protection cover usually extends to all members of a household- not just the person who took out the policy.

A difficulty sometimes arises when choosing your solicitor. You might think that you are entitled to choose your own solicitor and you would be right. Insurers seldom see it that way though and most are dedicated to forcing you to use a highly paid ‘panel’ solicitor of their choice, sometimes at the other end of the country.

In 1987 the EEC (as it then was) required member states to pass any necessary legislation to ensure the freedom of individuals to choose their own lawyer. The government of the day although publicly committed to the freedom of the individual was in reality more concerned to protect the freedom of their rich friends and supporters to make as much money as possible.

After dragging their feet for three years eventually the government introduced regulations which put the most restrictive possible interpretation on the EEC requirement; they guaranteed freedom of choice effectively only after court proceedings were commenced. A person determined to choose their own solicitor would be permitted to do so only after the case had started in court or tribunal and would need to change solicitors then. Understandably many people are reluctant to change solicitors at this potentially tricky stage.

Both the EC and the FSA have long regarded this as an unsatisfactory state of affairs. The FSA have sought assurances from insurers that they will allow cases to be dealt with by a solicitor of the policy holder’s choice and have had some limited success in this.

Now the European Court of Justice has clarified what is required; ‘provisions of a contract that detract from or qualify in any way the freedom to choose a lawyer will not be compliant’. The FSA has asked all legal expenses insurers to explain the steps they are taking to ensure they are compliant. Watch this space.

You may (correctly) have guessed that North West Employment Law is entirely independent and not on the panel of any insurer and you may think that accounts for my view on the subject. Even so it is difficult to conclude that the EC, the European Court of Justice and the FSA are not on the right side of this argument whatever most people might say about those institutions. After all, in the end it is not the insurer that is paying- it is you.

There are two things which can make the day better. The first is simple and obvious- it is winning your claim.

The second is fairly obvious too. It is being prepared and includes having an idea what will happen at the tribunal. We do most of the preparation for our clients but we cannot prepare them mentally. That is mainly for the clients themselves.

If you know how your hearing will proceed it will not mean that you win the case- but it might help.

Almost all employment tribunal hearings are in public so if you can it is well worth going to a tribunal to watch a hearing before your own case is due to be heard. Ideally you will be able to watch a case similar to your own but most types of case are dealt with in a similar way so it does not matter too much. Unless you want to spend a lot of time at the tribunal it is best to pick one that is not expected to last too long because the steps are the same regardless of how long the case lasts.

Whether or not you go to see a hearing before your case it is also worth reading up on what happens so we have produced a guide to what you can expect. You can find it in the Employee Guides section of the web-site: An employee’s guide to employment tribunal hearings

Our advice to clients is to be careful what they say about their employer and colleagues- particularly if they have a problem at work or if they have lost their job and are either making a claim or are hoping to reach an agreement. That general advice is especially important in electronic media such as Facebook or Twitter and it goes for e-mails too.

Many people use electronic media as a modern form of gossip and put as much thought into what they write as what they say (not much?). There are two obvious but important differences between what is written in cyberspace and what is said- firstly you cannot be sure who will read what you write, secondly what you write can be copied and kept to use against you later. It will be no use then to deny that you said anything or claim that you were misquoted and taken out of context.

One client put his case in serious jeopardy by comments he made on Facebook about his employer whilst making a discrimination claim.

Another client was dismissed for gross misconduct because of comments she made in an e-mail during her notice period. The e-mail was intended to be light hearted and amusing but the employer did not see it that way. They regarded the e-mail as a gross breach of the clients duty and marched her off the premises. That way the employer thought they could avoid making a redundancy payment and save a sizeable chunk of notice pay.

No matter how witty you are and how amusing your comments you can be sure your employer will not see the joke. Especially if it suits them not to. So it is best to say nothing if you do not want your employer to have the last laugh.