Practice area
Professional negligence — when the file is the evidence
Reconstructing what a professional knew, what they recorded, and what a competent file would have contained — against the standard of the time, not against hindsight.
What the work is#
File reconstruction
Rebuilding what was actually on the file at the moment the decision was taken: what was asked, what was disclosed, what was recorded, and what a file meeting the standard of the day would have held. The gaps are usually the case.
The regulatory and disciplinary record
Solicitors, barristers, advisers and firms leave a published trail — disciplinary findings, enforcement notices, ombudsman determinations, compensation-scheme defaults. Assembling it is a research task with a definite answer, and it is often done far too late.
Authorisation and permission, as at the relevant date
Whether a firm or individual was authorised to do the thing they did, when they did it, is a checkable fact rather than a matter of impression. The registers record permissions, and they record when those permissions changed.
Where negligence meets financial crime
Auditors who did not find the fraud, compliance functions that did not report, professionals whose services were used to move value. These sit across the practice's other arenas rather than beside them.
Who instructs this#
- Claimant and defendant solicitors in professional negligence claims
- Professional indemnity insurers and their panel firms
- Administrators and liquidators pursuing professional advisers
- Firms facing a regulatory or disciplinary process of their own
What you end up holding#
- A reconstructed chronology of the file, sourced document by document
- The published regulatory and disciplinary record for the professional or firm
- An authorisation and permissions history as at the relevant dates
- A findings memo that states the evidence and marks the inference as inference
Evidence the practice has done this#
Two auditor matters are worked in full in the dossier: NMC Health, where the administrators' claim against EY was tried in 2025 and settled in February 2026, and Wirecard alongside the Braun trial. Staley v FCA is worked for the regulatory-conduct dimension.
Each is read for what a competent examination would have detected, year by year — not for what is obvious once the collapse is known.
- →NMC Health — the administrators v EY
- →Wirecard — Braun trial & the EY claims
- →James (Jes) Staley v FCA
Where to look yourself#
The official sources this work runs on. All free, all published by the body that made the record.
Every engagement begins with a discussion
Scope, people and approach are set once the matter is known, and put in writing before any work starts. The first conversation is free.
probative.io is a research and investigations practice, not a law firm, and does not provide legal advice. This page describes the work the practice does and the sources it uses. It states no view on any particular matter, and nothing here should be read as advice on one.