7 July 2026Kyra Pastrovic / 3 min read
A lawyer can act for injured claimants in some matters and for insurers or organisations in others, provided they never act for both sides of the same dispute at once. A conflict check before accepting any new matter keeps each side's interests separate and properly protected.
This question comes up because most firms pick a lane and stay in it: either they act for injured people, or they act for insurers and defendants, but rarely both at once. Vamp Law is one of the exceptions, and clients and insurers alike are entitled to ask directly how that actually works in practice before instructing us on either side.
Why this question comes up
Personal injury and liability litigation is often set up as an adversarial split, with claimant firms sitting on one side and defendant or insurer-panel firms sitting on the other, rarely crossing over. A firm that acts across both raises a fair question about whose interests it actually serves on any given file, and that question deserves a direct, specific answer rather than a vague general reassurance about professional standards.
What "acting for both sides" actually means
Vamp Law acts for injured claimants in some matters, and for insurers or organisations defending liability claims in other, entirely separate matters. It never acts for both sides of the same dispute at the same time, under any circumstances. That distinction, between different matters handled over time and simultaneous dual representation on one live dispute, is the entire basis on which this arrangement is ethical, professionally proper and genuinely workable in practice. Acting for opposing parties in the same matter would be a clear conflict of interest, and that is not something that happens here, without exception.
How conflicts are managed matter by matter
Every new instruction, whether it comes from an injured claimant or from an insurer, is checked against current and recent matters before it is accepted onto the file list.
If a genuine conflict exists, whether direct or reasonably perceived by either side, the new instruction is declined outright rather than accepted and managed around.
Client information from one matter is never used in, referred to, or shared into a matter involving an opposing interest, regardless of how tempting a shortcut it might seem.
Where any doubt exists about whether a conflict might arise, the more cautious course is taken and the instruction is not accepted.
The advantage of seeing both sides of liability litigation
Acting for insurers informs how Kyra Pastrovic prepares a claimant's case, because it includes a practical, current understanding of how an insurer's legal team actually assesses liability, quantum and litigation risk on a file, rather than a guess at how that assessment is made from the outside. The reverse holds equally true: acting for injured people sharpens the assessment of a claimant's case when advising an insurer on a defended matter, because it reflects a genuine understanding of how a claim is actually built and argued rather than a purely adversarial caricature of it. See what insurers look for in a panel litigation lawyer and can a personal injury lawyer act for both injured people and insurers? for how this plays out from each respective side of a dispute.
Discuss your matter
Whether you are an injured person weighing up a potential claim or an insurer considering instructions on a liability matter, make an enquiry to discuss it directly and openly. Read more about personal injury at Vamp Law, including representation for insurers and organisations. This article is general information, not legal advice on a specific matter.
Last reviewed 7 July 2026. General information only, not legal advice.
