Solicitor won't take our case.

lalique

When we purchased our house 3 years ago (secondhand house) we used a local solicitor, we also decided to get a full survey done for peace of mind. The survey came back fine and we proceeded with the sale. Now 3 years on we are experiencing severe structural problems with the house, which an independent surveyor has said should have been picked up originally as they are unmissable issues. We then went back to the solicitor to find out how we stand to make a claim on surveyor/engineer who signed house off/builder for compensation as the work to recify this will run into thousands.

Our solicitor then stunned us by saying she wouldn't act for us as she didn't want to make a claim against another local professional. We then asked for our original file so that we can take it to another solicitor, and was told that it would take a week to photocopy it!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and there would be a 200 + VAT charge.

Any idea how to proceed with this??? or has anyone come across this before.

Carawaystick

You can ask for it under the data protection act and she can charge you EUR6.35

she can take longer this way though up to 40 days or so.

I suppose even if you cold compel her to take your case would you really want her to do it now?

Wantobe

Data protection only applies to public bodies not private firms like solicitors.

It is quite common for solicitors not to want to act against someone local. They have to work in tandem with this engineer going forward into the future for other clients and therefore would normally prefer not to be on bad terms with them. For the same reason solicitors don't usually want to sue other local solicitors/ auctioneers etc.

Normally you would be advised to go out of the county to find an independent solicitor to act for you. If you don't know where to go ask for recommendations or go to the Law Society for a list of firms.

The fee for a copy of your file is called a scrivenery fee and is commonly charged- your solicitor needs to make a secretary available to photocopy your file for an hour or however long it takes. That has a cost implication. I would have thought two hundred euro is on the high sides since traditionally most solicitors would charge more of a nominal amount. However depending on the size of the file it may well be justifiable.

snubbleste

Data Protection Act applies to solicitors too, you should follow Carawaystick's method.

servicecharge

You are legally entitled to your file (so long as your bill is paid up), the actual file not a copy. Don't ask for bits of it, tell them you want the original. They need to keep a copy under solicitors regs but that is their duty so their expense.

It is your property. Write to your solicitor and inform them you are entitled to your file and will complain to the law society if you do not receive it in 10 days.

Was it a second hand home? Why no homebond?

I would suggest a solicitor from outside the locality, nearest big city?

Don't say you want to her to hand it over to another solicitor, you want it for yourself.

mikemac

Wantobe wrote: »

Data protection only applies to public bodies not private firms like solicitors.

Freedom of Information is for public bodies, data protection will apply to these solicitors

Wantobe

Nope, data protection will not get OP a copy of their file.

While a solicitor is a 'data controller' for the purposes of the act the acto only covers personal data, so OP would have the right to ask the solicitor what personal data they held and the right to have it corrected if it were wrong, the information held can only be use for the purpose for which it was given and the information must not be retained longer than is necessary.

That absolutely does not mean that they can get a copy of the entire file.

The correct procedure is as the solicitor has requested. Op can complain all she/he likes to the Law Society but they have no grounds to do so.

servicecharge

This has nothing to do with data protection or freedom of information.

Once the bill has been paid the the file is the client's property and the solicitor cannot withhold it. They can charge a fee if you want a copy of the file or documents on the file. But if you wish to take full possession of the file then no fee should apply.

Again I suggest you contact the law society.

elgransenor

servicecharge wrote: »

This has nothing to do with data protection or freedom of information.

Once the bill has been paid the the file is the client's property and the solicitor cannot withhold it. They can charge a fee if you want a copy of the file or documents on the file. But if you wish to take full possession of the file then no fee should apply.

Again I suggest you contact the law society.

+1

EC1000

servicecharge wrote: »

This has nothing to do with data protection or freedom of information.

Once the bill has been paid the the file is the client's property and the solicitor cannot withhold it. They can charge a fee if you want a copy of the file or documents on the file. But if you wish to take full possession of the file then no fee should apply.

Again I suggest you contact the law society.

This is true (at least according to the law society anyway). The ORIGINAL file is yours - dont accept a copy (provided your bill is paid up to date).

Derby1

Hope it is ok to jump on an old thread but I have had the exact same problem this morning.

I have requested a file from the puchase of a business 6 years ago that I wish to pass on to my new solicitor. I am being asked to stump up €123 (€100 plus VAT) for a scrivenery fee. They advise me this is to cover searching out the file, photocopying and postage.

Based on the above postings I have advised them I don't want a copy, I want the original, plus I will pick it up myself. I am waiting on them to call me back.

1. I was just wondering whether anyone has any comments on my situation.

2. I was wondering how the contributors above got on when/if they challenged this fee.

Thanks

ResearchWill

Derby1 wrote: »

Hope it is ok to jump on an old thread but I have had the exact same problem this morning.

I have requested a file from the puchase of a business 6 years ago that I wish to pass on to my new solicitor. I am being asked to stump up €123 (€100 plus VAT) for a scrivenery fee. They advise me this is to cover searching out the file, photocopying and postage.

Based on the above postings I have advised them I don't want a copy, I want the original, plus I will pick it up myself. I am waiting on them to call me back.

1. I was just wondering whether anyone has any comments on my situation.

2. I was wondering how the contributors above got on when/if they challenged this fee.

Thanks

€123 is cheap enough. As the file is 6 years old it is in storage, so there will be work required to discover where file is stored on site or off, then the file will have to retrieved, then checked to make sure there is no issue, any documents that the solicitor might have to hang onto copied just in case, then all given to you. Knowing a good firm this is any where between 30 mins and a couple of hours work. If its 2 hours work its €50 an hour plus VAT.

Or do you believe the solicitor should do this work for free. Can I ask would you do 1 hours work that someone requested you to do for free? Then at you own expenses copy some documents for them plus then spend €20 of your own cash posting everything to them.

Derby1

I accept your comments. If I was asking them to do something out of the ordinary I could understand. I paid them very handsomely 6 years ago. I run a business myself and if I slapped on a fee here and a fee there every time a customer wanted a duplicate receipt or invoice I would be out of business.

A little bit of background here.

I was contacted about 2 years after the transaction in my OP and asked to pick up an envelop which I understood to be my file. I have sent that envelop, plus all the correspondence I received at the time to my new solicitor. But it turns out the solicitors have kept what would appear to be the important stuff on file.

ResearchWill

Derby1 wrote: »

I accept your comments. If I was asking them to do something out of the ordinary I could understand. I paid them very handsomely 6 years ago. I run a business myself and if I slapped on a fee here and a fee there every time a customer wanted a duplicate receipt or invoice I would be out of business.

A little bit of background here.

I was contacted about 2 years after the transaction in my OP and asked to pick up an envelop which I understood to be my file. I have sent that envelop, plus all the correspondence I received at the time to my new solicitor. But it turns out the solicitors have kept what would appear to be the important stuff on file.

This is not getting a duplicate receipt. There may be a very valid reason to keep original documents on the file, there may be undertakings on the file, there may be letters of discharge on the file.

Its very easy to get file a year or two after transaction, and to arrange copies etc., as file is in office, there is little or no extra work at that stage. A file in storage is a very different matter, it needs to be located, checked, to make sure any documents the solicitor needs to keep for what ever reason are kept or copied. The solicitor may wish and need to keep copies of any revenue stuff to show stamp duty paid etc.

I personally think the fee is fair. Also why has it taken your new solicitor 4 years to discover documents are not on the file you gave him.

littlemac1980

€123 = €100 plus Vat - that seems very reasonable for a copy of a file. I've often taken 3-4 hours copying files.

Why isn't this request going through your current solicitor? If they are taking the matter up, one would expect them to take up your original file from the previous solicitor. That wouldn't involve copying and (though I can't be certain) likely wouldn't involve any fee from the previous solicitor. I'm surprised they didn't discuss that with you.

Regarding your impression of what you collected a number of years back. Unless you specifically requested the entire file at the time, a prudent solicitor would retain all important and relevant documents until such time as they are specifically requested and signed-off as having been received by a client or their agent. That would be all the more important in a case involving the purchase of property.

I don't want to come across disrespectful but if you were requested to collect an envelope of documents soon after the transaction, then I'd expect you would have clarified what you were collecting at the time. You say you understood it was the full file. Did you enquire?

Derby1

ResearchWill wrote: »

This is not getting a duplicate receipt. There may be a very valid reason to keep original documents on the file, there may be undertakings on the file, there may be letters of discharge on the file.

Its very easy to get file a year or two after transaction, and to arrange copies etc., as file is in office, there is little or no extra work at that stage. A file in storage is a very different matter, it needs to be located, checked, to make sure any documents the solicitor needs to keep for what ever reason are kept or copied.

Duplicate receipt - how old is it, where is it, what VAT rate was on it, was it paid, amend the bookkeeping -Simple? No cost?

ResearchWill wrote: »

The solicitor may wish and need to keep copies of any revenue stuff to show stamp duty paid etc.

If they "wish" to keep copies that's their business and their cost imo.

ResearchWill wrote: »

I personally think the fee is fair.

I personally think its a rip off!

ResearchWill wrote: »

Also why has it taken your new solicitor 4 years to discover documents are not on the file you gave him.

I only appointed them a week ago!! I think they spotted the missing paperwork very quickly. The day they received it in fact!

Derby1

littlemac1980 wrote: »

Why isn't this request going through your current solicitor? If they are taking the matter up, one would expect them to take up your original file from the previous solicitor. That wouldn't involve copying and (though I can't be certain) likely wouldn't involve any fee from the previous solicitor. I'm surprised they didn't discuss that with you.

My solicitor did make the request and that's when the charge arose. Solicitor contacted me to advise and that's when I got involved.

Presumably you work in a solicitors office, so it is interesting to note this is not a common practice.

Looks like there will be two sides to this argument. On the one side solicitors who are not making the money they once did, trying to improve their bottom line. On the other, members of the general public who think this is an unfair charge.

I still think this is a low blow for taking business elsewhere.

CIARAN_BOYLE

I can see both sides. I don't work in law (I'm actually an accounting student) but something similar happened to me a couple of years ago while doing work experience. A client that the company didn't do any work for for about 6 years asked to receive a full copy of all works done.

I had to go out to the off site storage (30 minute drive each way) and track down the file (1 hour looking probably less usually but I hadn't been out there before so it took me a good while to find it).

Then I had to go through the file (there are certain documents that the preparing accountants should hold (or hold copies of) for legal reasons), and copy documents where appropriate (another hour).

So was 3 hours work, I don't know to be honest if the company billed them or didn't bill them but if I was in charge of billing I'd have to say that I would be very tempted to send a bill.

ResearchWill

Derby1 wrote: »

Duplicate receipt - how old is it, where is it, what VAT rate was on it, was it paid, amend the bookkeeping -Simple? No cost?



If they "wish" to keep copies that's their business and their cost imo.



I personally think its a rip off!



I only appointed them a week ago!! I think they spotted the missing paperwork very quickly. The day they received it in fact!

For some business getting copy receipt could be very easy for other difficult if easy then no charge.

You said the transaction was 6 years ago, then got envelope 2 years after, then gave that to new solicitor, I made assumption that was at the time.

If you think it's a rip off then don't pay it, simple. Then your old solicitor won't do the work you want them todo. A fee in this case is normal and correct, if you don't like it don't pay it.

mathepac

littlemac1980 wrote: »

€123 = €100 plus Vat - that seems very reasonable for a copy of a file. ...

I think you might need to read the post again. There is no mention of a copy.

littlemac1980 wrote: »

... I've often taken 3-4 hours copying files. ...

Which may speak volumes about how you spend your days, but I don't think it helps in answering the poster's question.

shaneybaby

mathepac wrote: »

Which may speak volumes about how you spend your days, but I don't think it helps in answering the poster's question.

Nasty...

Lots of us spend hours copying files as young trainees. Makes you realise the value of your time. €123 for a file isn't ridiculous at all. Charges from the storage company alone could be €30.

ResearchWill

mathepac wrote: »

I think you might need to read the post again. There is no mention of a copy.
Which may speak volumes about how you spend your days, but I don't think it helps in answering the poster's question.

From the OP "I have requested a file from the puchase of a business 6 years ago that I wish to pass on to my new solicitor. I am being asked to stump up €123 (€100 plus VAT) for a scrivenery fee. They advise me this is to cover searching out the file, photocopying and postage."

You are correct no mention of copy only photocopying.

The reason the file may need to be copied, is that the solicitor may need to prove at some time certain facts contained in the file. As example the file may contain an undertaking and a letter of discharge, that will need to be copied and filed. So in fact a file taking a couple of hours to copy may very well answer the posters question.

It seems to me what happened here, is OP got work done by solicitor 6 years ago and of course paid him. Then 2 years later when either file review or when closing file solicitor copied or put original documents that OP would need in an envelope and gave to OP as they must have been important.

Fast forward 4 more years OP needs to do something so gives docs to a new solicitor, they say we need to see original file. OP goes to old solicitor asks for file, old solicitor says no problem. I need to retrieve it from storage, I need to copy some important docs and I need to send to your new solicitor by reg post, so that will cost me and therefore the OP.

littlemac1980

mathepac wrote: »

I think you might need to read the post again. There is no mention of a copy.
Which may speak volumes about how you spend your days, but I don't think it helps in answering the poster's question.

I think you need to read the correct post - here it is:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83343437&postcount=11

You will see there is mention of the fee being referable to searching, photocopying and postage.

I don't know why you bothered to add the second line.

mathepac

I'm confused as well as being mis-understood (boo-hoo).

ResearchWill wrote: »

From the OP "I have requested a file from the puchase of a business 6 years ago that I wish to pass on to my new solicitor. ...".

This is the poster's request to his old solicitor. No ifs, ands, buts or maybes. To a simple person like me €10 or even €15 to register a small packet or to send it through the legal courier system to its destination would seem reasonable. Responding positively to the poster's request ends there.

The next bits are where it all goes awry IMHO.

ResearchWill wrote: »

"... I am being asked to stump up €123 (€100 plus VAT) for a scrivenery fee. They advise me this is to cover searching out the file, photocopying and postage." ... .

"searching out the file" - Client's name typed into office database, cross referenced to archive location - 30 seconds, done
" photocopying" - the solicitor may have good reason to keep copies of certain part(s) of the file; tax, Revenue records, insurance, payment tracking, etc but these have to do with the solicitor's own business needs and have nothing to do with the client's request, so why should the client pay?
"postage." - €10 or €15

We seem to be a long way short of €123 in my guesstimations.

ResearchWill wrote: »

... You are correct no mention of copy only photocopying. ...

I know. All the photocopying, as presented here so far, seems to be about the solicitor's need for copies. Why should the client be asked to pay?

ResearchWill wrote: »

... The reason the file may need to be copied, is that the solicitor may need to prove at some time certain facts contained in the file. As example the file may contain an undertaking and a letter of discharge, that will need to be copied and filed. ...

I know, see above.

ResearchWill wrote: »

... a file taking a couple of hours to copy may very well answer the posters question.

How? This is where my eyes go glassy and I wonder do we inhabit the same dimension. In what way does this help the client progress his request to help him change solicitors?

ResearchWill

mathepac wrote: »

I'm confused as well as being mis-understood (boo-hoo).
This is the poster's request to his old solicitor. No ifs, ands, buts or maybes. To a simple person like me €10 or even €15 to register a small packet or to send it through the legal courier system to its destination would seem reasonable. Responding positively to the poster's request ends there.

The next bits are where it all goes awry IMHO.



"searching out the file" - Client's name typed into office database, cross referenced to archive location - 30 seconds, done
" photocopying" - the solicitor may have good reason to keep copies of certain part(s) of the file; tax, Revenue records, insurance, payment tracking, etc but these have to do with the solicitor's own business needs and have nothing to do with the client's request, so why should the client pay?
"postage." - €10 or €15

We seem to be a long way short of €123 in my guesstimations.
I know. All the photocopying, as presented here so far, seems to be about the solicitor's need for copies. Why should the client be asked to pay?
I know, see above.
How? This is where my eyes go glassy and I wonder do we inhabit the same dimension. In what way does this help the client progress his request to help him change solicitors?

The file may as in many offices be stored off site, even if stored on site retrieving it is not a 30 second job. I can assure you you guesstimates are wrong.

In relation to photocopying there is legal and regulatory reasons for the solicitor to have copy documents, this is the clients file but the solicitor must do what is required, he does so by keeping the file in storage, if the client wants the file then the solicitor must due to the clients request be able to comply with his legal obligations. As this request is for the benefit of the client not the solicitor, the solicitor is well within his rights to charge. It's really simple if you ask someone to do work expect to pay them.

No thank fully we don't inhabit the same dimension, I know what I'm talking about.

The way my answer helps the OP to get his file, is to pay the man get his file, and stop wasting his own time on a non issue. If he does not want to do that then don't pay and go waste his own time fighting with his old solicitor.

mathepac

ResearchWill wrote: »

... No thank fully we don't inhabit the same dimension ...

Amen to that, but I still don't see why legal and regulatory requirements should become a bill to a specific client who wants to move on. Surely these are items that should to be levied across the board on all clients once they are billed; the logic seems to be "leave us and you pay, stay with us and you get it for free" or is it more correctly "leave us and you pay again, stay with us because you've already paid"?

ResearchWill

mathepac wrote: »

Amen to that, but I still don't see why legal and regulatory requirements should become a bill to a specific client who wants to move on. Surely these are items that should to be levied across the board on all clients once they are billed; the logic seems to be "leave us and you pay, stay with us and you get it for free" or is it more correctly "leave us and you pay again, stay with us because you've already paid"?

You are missing a very important point. I have tried to explain it, here again. If solicitor say may have to prove to revenue that stamp duty was paid, well he has receipt. Now if revenue asks he just gets the file and says here it is. But what if the client takes file, he won't have receipt so he needs to copy it. Same with letters of discharge of undertakings etc.

I again say knowing (important word) the amount of time to get file, to check file to see if any document is required to be copied and to send by registered post, €100 is cheap.

mathepac

ResearchWill wrote: »

You are missing a very important point. .....

No I'm not.

From my perspective, solicitors are charging clients for copying client files so the solicitor can demonstrate that the firm is legally compliant and adhering to regulations. This is all the solicitors' problem as any penalties levied for non-compliance or non-adherence will be levied against the solicitor. Why should only the (departing) client pay to prevent this? He has already paid to have the file compiled as work on his behalf progressed and there are acknowledgements above that the file is in fact the clients' property. Why should the client pay to gain possession of his / her own paid-for property?

Does a solicitor need a departing client's permission before copying a file or retaining copies of the contents?

ResearchWill

mathepac wrote: »

No I'm not.

From my perspective, solicitors are charging clients for copying client files so the solicitor can demonstrate that the firm is legally compliant and adhering to regulations. This is all the solicitors' problem as any penalties levied for non-compliance or non-adherence will be levied against the solicitor. Why should only the (departing) client pay to prevent this? He has already paid to have the file compiled as work on his behalf progressed and there are acknowledgements above that the file is in fact the clients' property. Why should the client pay to gain possession of his / her own paid-for property?

Does a solicitor need a departing client's permission before copying a file or retaining copies of the contents?

The solicitor does not have to copy a file he has in his office as wait for it, it is in his office. He only has to copy it if the client wishes to take it to another office. Can't you get that? As long as the file is in his office, in storage then the solicitor has no problem, it is only if the file leaves that an issue arises. Can't you get that? 1 file can't exist in two offices unless, there is a copy.

I repeat you are missing the important point, either you don't want to get it, or well let's just say you can't get it.

Marcusm

mathepac wrote: »

No I'm not.

From my perspective, solicitors are charging clients for copying client files so the solicitor can demonstrate that the firm is legally compliant and adhering to regulations. This is all the solicitors' problem as any penalties levied for non-compliance or non-adherence will be levied against the solicitor. Why should only the (departing) client pay to prevent this? He has already paid to have the file compiled as work on his behalf progressed and there are acknowledgements above that the file is in fact the clients' property. Why should the client pay to gain possession of his / her own paid-for property?

Does a solicitor need a departing client's permission before copying a file or retaining copies of the contents?

You're absolutely right mathepac, all clients should have to pay this fee upfront on the off chance that they subsequently need to transfer the file to another solicitor, that would be a much more cost effective solution for the client (not).

You seem not to be disputing the validity of the charge but simply its timing; I say you are arguing against your own interests.

mathepac

ResearchWill wrote: »

... I repeat you are missing the important point, either you don't want to get it, or well let's just say you can't get it.

Marcusm wrote: »

You're absolutely right mathepac, all clients should have to pay this fee upfront on the off chance that they subsequently need to transfer the file to another solicitor, that would be a much more cost effective solution for the client (not). ...

My argument is that these charges are part of the cost of doing business referred to as "overhead" and not the direct cost of doing client-specific work.

Let me propose an analogy.

Solicitors need offices to conduct their business. These offices contain chairs. In order to be comfortable both the solicitor and the client sit in the chairs. After a consultation is there a line-item on the invoice stating "To chair rental for 30 mins"?

Unless the solicitor wants to raise the hackles of said client I would suggest not and also the reality is that the chair is there whether anyone sits in it or nor so the chair is an overhead not directly attributable to a specific client or his matters, so the cost is recovered via all the clients of a firm.

Similarly, on the completion of a client's business with a firm, it is highly unlikely that a "file storage" invoice is generated for archiving papers for that client as archival costs are charges out as overhead to all clients.

The just thing to do therefore is to take the annual costs of all departing clients' "retrieval" work and allocate it back to overhead so there is no added cost to the business of releasing papers to the client and no direct charge to a particular client. In the overall scheme of things this is probably a tiny amount of money; in terms of client goodwill it could be enormous. It would also save me the typing effort.

McCrack

I would point out the bigger picture; office overheads, staff wages, people seem to forget that the time spent locating the file (probably off site if it's 6 years post transaction) and copying it eats into staff time that the solicitor is paying for through wages not to mention the equipment used to photocopy costs money and even down to the bloody toner and paper.

All costs money.

100 plus VAT is reasonable.

mathepac

McCrack wrote: »

I would point out the bigger picture; office overheads, staff wages, people seem to forget that the time spent locating the file (probably off site if it's 6 years post transaction) and copying it eats into staff time that the solicitor is paying for through wages not to mention the equipment used to photocopy costs money and even down to the bloody toner and paper. ...

all overhead costs and all already recovered through the business via the allocations system. Thank you, you make my point very eloquently. If a client never asked for his file to be returned all those costs, other than postage, are still within the business as overhead.

McCrack

mathepac wrote: »

all overhead costs and all already recovered through the business via the allocations system. Thank you, you make my point very eloquently. If a client never asked for his file to be returned all those costs, other than postage, are still within the business as overhead.

Do you run a business?

ResearchWill

mathepac wrote: »

My argument is that these charges are part of the cost of doing business referred to as "overhead" and not the direct cost of doing client-specific work.

Let me propose an analogy.

Solicitors need offices to conduct their business. These offices contain chairs. In order to be comfortable both the solicitor and the client sit in the chairs. After a consultation is there a line-item on the invoice stating "To chair rental for 30 mins"?

Unless the solicitor wants to raise the hackles of said client I would suggest not and also the reality is that the chair is there whether anyone sits in it or nor so the chair is an overhead not directly attributable to a specific client or his matters, so the cost is recovered via all the clients of a firm.

Similarly, on the completion of a client's business with a firm, it is highly unlikely that a "file storage" invoice is generated for archiving papers for that client as archival costs are charges out as overhead to all clients.

The just thing to do therefore is to take the annual costs of all departing clients' "retrieval" work and allocate it back to overhead so there is no added cost to the business of releasing papers to the client and no direct charge to a particular client. In the overall scheme of things this is probably a tiny amount of money; in terms of client goodwill it could be enormous. It would also save me the typing effort.

Yes and a normal overhead is storing the file. The file is stored and the client not charged on top of fees paid. The client now wants an extra (extra is an important word) the extra is to retrieve the file, copy important documents, then send it by hand or registered post to new solicitor, for which €100 plus VAT is very fair.

In relation to it being a small charge, have you ever seen a big solicitors file. I have seen files that have to be delivered to court by van, I'm not joking. Now while the vast majority of files are a few hundred sheets of paper some go to whole bankers boxes and some more go to multiple bankers boxes.

ResearchWill

mathepac wrote: »

all overhead costs and all already recovered through the business via the allocations system. Thank you, you make my point very eloquently. If a client never asked for his file to be returned all those costs, other than postage, are still within the business as overhead.

By your logic, if the client came in with a new issue, as there is no expenditure outside of overheads he should not have to pay any fee.

valleyoftheunos

Solicitor's files are peculiar things, they have to be kept for certain periods of time, solicitors are obliged to keep certain files open for up to 12 years and Solicitors have other obligations relating to specific documents in those files.

The point that Researchwill was making and which he was correct about is that Solicitors are legally obliged to keep certain things. if they have the file they are obeying that obligation, if they give that file to the client then they are not obeying that obligation so they need to make a copy, the client's request is the reason why that copy is being made so its only right that they pay for it.

This seems to be another example of actual work that people inexplicably expect Solicitors to do for free. If you do work for someone you are entitled to charge for it. Thinking that getting a file from storage, copying it and handing it over is in anyway similar to issuing duplicate receipts or invoices simply isn't correct.

As Researchwill pointed out files can be huge, even straightforward files are big. That file then has to be gone through in its entirety by the solicitor. They have to make sure that it is complete, that there isn't anything in it which relates to a third party which the client shouldn't be given and if there are any documents which they are obliged to keep. on a large file that could easily take hours. I can think of no reason why a solicitor should be expected to do all that free of charge for a client who has requested it.

mathepac

ResearchWill wrote: »

... The client now wants an extra (extra is an important word) the extra is to retrieve the file, copy important documents, then send it by hand or registered post to new solicitor ...

The client wants nothing extra, he simply wants his property turned over directly to him or to his new solicitor. Reach into cabinet, take out file, hand it over.

If it more complex than this it is because solicitors choose to make more complex.

If the solicitor need copies of certain documents, by all means take copies of them with the client's permission, but why charge the poor overburdened client for compliance work which has nothing to do with the completed client work or the client's instructions?

If the client has already paid his invoices, was he made aware in advance that getting his own property back was going to cost him money?

ResearchWill wrote: »

... for which €100 plus VAT is very fair. ....

I don't agree. You're talking about billing a client for work that has no product or benefit for the client, only for the solicitor.

ResearchWill wrote: »

...
In relation to it being a small charge, have you ever seen a big solicitors file. I have seen files that have to be delivered to court by van, I'm not joking. Now while the vast majority of files are a few hundred sheets of paper some go to whole bankers boxes and some more go to multiple bankers boxes.

Let's try to keep a sense of proportion here. I don't believe we're talking about the work-product of mutiple senior and junior counsel "dahn the Four Goldmines" or a huge criminal prosecution with several dozen witnesses and witness statements, etc. This sounds like a "simple" commercial transaction - no need for Eddie Stobart to get involved.

ResearchWill

mathepac wrote: »

The client wants nothing extra, he simply wants his property turned over directly to him or to his new solicitor. Reach into cabinet, take out file, hand it over.

If it more complex than this it is because solicitors choose to make more complex.

If the solicitor need copies of certain documents, by all means take copies of them with the client's permission, but why charge the poor overburdened client for compliance work which has nothing to do with the completed client work or the client's instructions?

If the client has already paid his invoices, was he made aware in advance that getting his own property back was going to cost him money?I don't agree. You're talking about billing a client for work that has no product or benefit for the client, only for the solicitor.
Let's try to keep a sense of proportion here. I don't believe we're talking about the work-product of mutiple senior and junior counsel "dahn the Four Goldmines" or a huge criminal prosecution with several dozen witnesses and witness statements, etc. This sounds like a "simple" commercial transaction - no need for Eddie Stobart to get involved.

The fact that you think a file sits in a filing cabinet for six years after a transaction says exactly how much you know. Which to be clear is nothing.

If the client sought his file after the transaction finished, he would be gladly given it more than likely at no cost as the file is live, it's a short job to do the necessary. But here the solicitor has stored the file (now that the client needs it ain't he happy) now he needs to do some work at the clients request, simple. If you ask anyone to do work for you they deserve to be paid.

Procrastastudy

When I bought Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan on tape I watched it so many times I wore the tape out. (Especially the bit with Kirsty Alley in the turbolift) I bought it again on DVD and they had the gall to charge me again. I tried explaining that I'd bought it before so I owned it. Turns out that you can pay for one aspect of the work of another and still have to pay if you need to access to that work again.

valleyoftheunos

mathepac wrote: »

The client wants nothing extra, he simply wants his property turned over directly to him or to his new solicitor. Reach into cabinet, take out file, hand it over.

If it more complex than this it is because solicitors choose to make more complex.

If the solicitor need copies of certain documents, by all means take copies of them with the client's permission, but why charge the poor overburdened client for compliance work which has nothing to do with the completed client work or the client's instructions?

If the client has already paid his invoices, was he made aware in advance that getting his own property back was going to cost him money?I don't agree. You're talking about billing a client for work that has no product or benefit for the client, only for the solicitor.
Let's try to keep a sense of proportion here. I don't believe we're talking about the work-product of mutiple senior and junior counsel "dahn the Four Goldmines" or a huge criminal prosecution with several dozen witnesses and witness statements, etc. This sounds like a "simple" commercial transaction - no need for Eddie Stobart to get involved.

You've demonstrated a number of times already that you have no understanding of what is involved and no interest in finding out so perhaps this discussion is best left here.

Incidentally are you a freeman of the land by any chance?

Boom__Boom

All this talk of photocopying and off-site storage has me baffled.

I would have expected in this day and age that if I requested a copy of my file from a solicitors I had deal with that it would be standard practice to receive this electronically.

It seems to me that a big part of this issue is that the legal profession hasn't properly embraced technology and has some weird attachment to paper.

ResearchWill

Boom__Boom wrote: »

All this talk of photocopying and off-site storage has me baffled.

I would have expected in this day and age that if I requested a copy of my file from a solicitors I had deal with that it would be standard practice to receive this electronically.

It seems to me that a big part of this issue is that the legal profession hasn't properly embraced technology and has some weird attachment to paper.

Many firms have electronic filing systems. But for many reasons and issues a physical original must exist. Have a look at a book of title on a property sometime. Originals of birth, marriage and other certificates must be used in certain circumstances. In company formations original cert of incorporation etc.

It really is not much good producing an electronic copy of something when only the original will do. I know firms that everything is done on a computer but a paper file still exists. Every letter in is scanned to file and original put on file, every letter out is stored as a .doc or .pdf, and posted. Not much good only have electronic file if some stuff has to still be posted.

blueythebear

Boom__Boom wrote: »

All this talk of photocopying and off-site storage has me baffled.

I would have expected in this day and age that if I requested a copy of my file from a solicitors I had deal with that it would be standard practice to receive this electronically.

It seems to me that a big part of this issue is that the legal profession hasn't properly embraced technology and has some weird attachment to paper.

Even the most techologically savvy firm has an electronic file and a paper file. There are numerous examples of situations where original documents are required to do business. For example, property documents such as original deeds. In fact, solicitors practises go to great expense of investing in fireproof safes / cabinets to store orginal deeds and wills.

valleyoftheunos

Boom__Boom wrote: »

All this talk of photocopying and off-site storage has me baffled.

I would have expected in this day and age that if I requested a copy of my file from a solicitors I had deal with that it would be standard practice to receive this electronically.

It seems to me that a big part of this issue is that the legal profession hasn't properly embraced technology and has some weird attachment to paper.

Just about every firm in the country has an electronic filing system with a complete digital copy of the file. It's the world that has an attachment to paper.

mathepac

Procrastastudy wrote: »

When I bought Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan on tape I watched it so many times I wore the tape out. (Especially the bit with Kirsty Alley in the turbolift) I bought it again on DVD and they had the gall to charge me again. I tried explaining that I'd bought it before so I owned it. Turns out that you can pay for one aspect of the work of another and still have to pay if you need to access to that work again.

Arse-about-face of course.

The correct analogy is if the client pays for a DVD and waits a while before collecting it, the shop-keeper says "Before I can release it I need to copy certain scenes for my records. That'll be an extra fiver please."

mathepac

ResearchWill wrote: »

By your logic, if the client came in with a new issue, as there is no expenditure outside of overheads he should not have to pay any fee.

No, that's warped logic. How you can get to that conclusion from my posts is baffling Do you run a business?

McCrack

Boom__Boom wrote: »

All this talk of photocopying and off-site storage has me baffled.

I would have expected in this day and age that if I requested a copy of my file from a solicitors I had deal with that it would be standard practice to receive this electronically.

It seems to me that a big part of this issue is that the legal profession hasn't properly embraced technology and has some weird attachment to paper.

My office is paperless but it's the type of work we do that allows us to be. There is very little originals of anything we need to keep. I know from talking to colleagues in big and small firms that they too are paperless. Technology by and large has been embraced by the profession with exceptions (I am aware of some older practitioners that don't use a computer for example).

However 6 years ago it wouldn't be normal and conveyance matters very much restrict the ability for not keeping a hard file particularly unregistered title which you just simply can't shred.

McCrack

mathepac wrote: »

No, that's warped logic. How you can get to that conclusion from my posts is baffling Do you run a business?

Not really. Its warped analogy to show warped analogy....but you wouldn't get it of course.

Procrastastudy

mathepac wrote: »

Arse-about-face of course.

The correct analogy is if the client pays for a DVD and waits a while before collecting it, the shop-keeper says "Before I can release it I need to copy certain scenes for my records. That'll be an extra fiver please."

But I only paid like £5 for the whole thing. So by your logic the client should be paying £1500 of the file. Also if Paramount ever needed the originals for some reason they couldn't have them. I think my analogy was spot on and you're just being obtuse. (5 Points for getting the latter movie reference.)

ResearchWill

mathepac wrote: »

No, that's warped logic. How you can get to that conclusion from my posts is baffling Do you run a business?

Yes I do and have run many in the past. You will not accept that the solicitor has done all he was paid for including storing a file for six years. Now the client want the solicitor to do something new, find the file in storage and give it to a new solicitor.

I wonder what business you are in if you can't grasp that that is a new request. The business I am in is that of a barrister. So unlike you I actually know what I'm talking about. What business are you in so I can drop in for all the free stuff.