Does it matter what solicitor/firm you use?

Nice Day

Hi. Is it a case a large firm has an advantage over an average sized firm or self employed solicitor?
Am I right in saying that, if a case goes to court a barrister on the day is appointed regardless of who the client chooses from the start? Therefore would it be considered that its better to choose a solicitor who works on a "No Win No Fee" agreement?

TIA!

dermot_sheehan

For litigation generally the big firms are expensive. You do however get things done right (regarding paperwork filed on time, letters responded to, etc). This is because they have the people and systems to ensure that things are done promptly.

With smaller firms you get this type of quality from many but not all. I've dealt with many a smaller firm which were as professional as the top 5 in preparing papers, taking proper attendances from clients, getting proper experts organised. I've dealt with a few that were not though. With the top 5 you are effectively guaranteed this but pay through nose for it.

Otherwise there is no difference, the smallest one man firm can instruct the most experienced senior counsel in the area in question

Tester46

gabhain7 wrote: »

For litigation generally the big firms are expensive. You do however get things done right (regarding paperwork filed on time, letters responded to, etc). This is because they have the people and systems to ensure that things are done promptly.

With smaller firms you get this type of quality from many but not all. I've dealt with many a smaller firm which were as professional as the top 5 in preparing papers, taking proper attendances from clients, getting proper experts organised. I've dealt with a few that were not though. With the top 5 you are effectively guaranteed this but pay through nose for it.

Otherwise there is no difference, the smallest one man firm can instruct the most experienced senior counsel in the area in question

Of course there are exceptions to that general rule. The post above seems (to me anyway) to portray solicitors as mere paper pushers who then go on to instruct the real expert i.e. senior counsel. In some cases that is true. In many cases it is nonsense.

For example, in many criminal cases there are small/medium-sized firms which have lots and lots of experience and are extremely expert. They regularly instruct counsel, but often it is because of convention i.e. the court and the client expect it, even though the solicitor is the real expert.

In commercial & corporate law, most of the best and most experienced practitioners are solicitors (often, but not always, from the big top ten firms). With some noteable exceptions (Forde, McCann, etc.), barristers have never really come to the fore in commercial issues. In those cases, counsel is usually lead by the solicitors.

So, for the OP, all of this is a long way of agreeing with the poster above but noting that the size of the firm is not the issue. the real issue is the expertise and efficiency of the people involved.

maidhc

Tester46 wrote: »

Of course there are exceptions to that general rule. The post above seems (to me anyway) to portray solicitors as mere paper pushers who then go on to instruct the real expert i.e. senior counsel. In some cases that is true. In many cases it is nonsense.

For example, in many criminal cases there are small/medium-sized firms which have lots and lots of experience and are extremely expert. They regularly instruct counsel, but often it is because of convention i.e. the court and the client expect it, even though the solicitor is the real expert.

In commercial & corporate law, most of the best and most experienced practitioners are solicitors (often, but not always, from the big top ten firms). With some noteable exceptions (Forde, McCann, etc.), barristers have never really come to the fore in commercial issues. In those cases, counsel is usually lead by the solicitors.

So, for the OP, all of this is a long way of agreeing with the poster above but noting that the size of the firm is not the issue. the real issue is the expertise and efficiency of the people involved.

Agree fully.

I also take umbrage to the idea solicitors merely instruct "experts".

impr0v

Tester46 wrote: »

Of course there are exceptions to that general rule. The post above seems (to me anyway) to portray solicitors as mere paper pushers who then go on to instruct the real expert i.e. senior counsel. In some cases that is true. In many cases it is nonsense.

For example, in many criminal cases there are small/medium-sized firms which have lots and lots of experience and are extremely expert. They regularly instruct counsel, but often it is because of convention i.e. the court and the client expect it, even though the solicitor is the real expert.

In commercial & corporate law, most of the best and most experienced practitioners are solicitors (often, but not always, from the big top ten firms). With some noteable exceptions (Forde, McCann, etc.), barristers have never really come to the fore in commercial issues. In those cases, counsel is usually lead by the solicitors.

So, for the OP, all of this is a long way of agreeing with the poster above but noting that the size of the firm is not the issue. the real issue is the expertise and efficiency of the people involved.

Also agree. I personally feel that it's only a matter of time before solicitors appearing in front of the High, Commercial and Supreme Courts becomes more common. In most forms of ADR it's common to see participants represented only by solicitors and, surprisingly to some, the outcome achieved does not discriminate between those who have counsel and those who have not.

dermot_sheehan

Of course may solicitors are experts in matters litigated and they do much more then "push papers" as indicated above.

I think the poster was basically asking though would senior counsel expert in certain areas be tied to particular solicitors, especially the top 5. Also what the differance in employing a small firm would be.

I disagree with the idea though that solicitors in any way "lead" counsel in court or indeed they are engaged solely as a matter or form or custom. A solicitor would be doing his client a diservice to engage and pay for an expert only as a matter of form.

Counsel are engaged for many reasons and are the norm in the circuit court and higher. Counsel can be more specialised then many solicitors who have to act in multifaced practices. Also counsel, as they engage in advocacy everyday tend to be more on form in court simply because they do it more if nothing else.

Much of the best work is done by preventing a matter from every needing to go to court by employing expertise in transactions and conveyancing to ensure that there is no matter left ambiguous in an agreement and that transactions are properly secured.

maidhc

gabhain7 wrote: »

I disagree with the idea though that solicitors in any way "lead" counsel in court or indeed they are engaged solely as a matter or form or custom. A solicitor would be doing his client a diservice to engage and pay for an expert only as a matter of form.

Many solicitors brief barristers so if things go wrong they can't be accused of screwing up by biting off more than they can chew. Barristers are often hired in family law proceedings so you can play good-cop-bad-cop and try and steer the parties towards a settlement they wouldn't be able to reach without someone impersonal (i.e. a barrister) telling them a few harsh facts.

And then there is convention and the fact the law society seem to discourage advocacy (or at least not encourage it). Some solicitors would tear any barrister apart in court, what they might lack in finesse they could make up in knowledge of the case and plain practicalities, but still don't appear, and everyone is worse off for it.