Solicitors -is this normal?

MissHoneyBun

Have never had any dealings with a solicitor until very recently so any advice would be greatly appreciated. Anyway over the course of my involvement with this solicitor (which is currently ongoing) they have done a few things which have concerned me. One of the main things being they raised their fee significantly at a very last minute opportunity. I then found out from the Law Society that they were obliged to provide written notification outlining costs several months ago, which they never did. I informed them of this (when questioning the sudden increase) and they admitted that they should have. 4 weeks have elapsed and I am yet to receive written documentation of costs.

Also this evening I had another member of the practice shout at me over the phone and then hang up on me when I called having had tried to arrange a meeting for over a week now. They consistently fail to return any calls and need to be called (literally) upwards of ten calls before they will give any response. This has always been the case since I began dealing with them.

They have also failed to notify me of court hearings and also failed to arrange to have any legal representative present on another occassion.
I have never had any interaction with the legal profession prior to this and am wondering if any of this is acceptable or even normal practice?

Reloc8

No its not.

pirelli

MissHoneyBun wrote: »

Have never had any dealings with a solicitor until very recently so any advice would be greatly appreciated. Anyway over the course of my involvement with this solicitor (which is currently ongoing) they have done a few things which have concerned me. One of the main things being they raised their fee significantly at a very last minute opportunity. I then found out from the Law Society that they were obliged to provide written notification outlining costs several months ago, which they never did. I informed them of this (when questioning the sudden increase) and they admitted that they should have. 4 weeks have elapsed and I am yet to receive written documentation of costs.

Also this evening I had another member of the practice shout at me over the phone and then hang up on me when I called having had tried to arrange a meeting for over a week now. They consistently fail to return any calls and need to be called (literally) upwards of ten calls before they will give any response. This has always been the case since I began dealing with them.

They have also failed to notify me of court hearings and also failed to arrange to have any legal representative present on another occassion.
I have never had any interaction with the legal profession prior to this and am wondering if any of this is acceptable or even normal practice?

Very normal. I have dealt with several solictors and they never issue invoices despite pating a generous fee so i am basing my post on this behaviour. In this instance OP i t isn't clear whether you have paid any fee as of yet and the relationship or arrangment you have with that solicitor.

However you have been in touch with the law society so you know they have to provide you with a document of costs and an invoice under i think section 58 of the solicitors act. You can make a complaint against them. If they do not provide you with an invoice then you cannot send to the tax masters for review leaving no choice but to make a complaint.

I would personally like to see these solicitors ( In my experience ) severely reprimanded and i can assure you if they do not give a damn about the law society or the solictiors act they will care as little about your case and most importantly what your hoping to achieve from it.

The purpose of law and courts is in some respects to get closure and these dodgy offices are ad hoc with that completely and create even more turmoil.

I hope i don't sound like one the neurotics from rate your solicitor but i think the law society should be more willinging to suspend solicitors the same way the joe soap is willing to lock up a "scumbag" or the courts someone who has made a mistake with their insurance or civil courts who will bankrupt a citizen because they haven't updated their toll tag/address with the toll authority.

Here is a guide that might help you in making a complaint. Please let us know how you get along.


http://www.lawsociety.ie/Documents/c...s/conduct2.pdf

MissHoneyBun

pirelli wrote: »

Very normal. I have dealt with several solictors and they never issue invoices despite pating a generous fee so i am basing my post on this behaviour. In this instance OP i t isn't clear whether you have paid any fee as of yet and the relationship or arrangment you have with that solicitor.

However you have been in touch with the law society so you know they have to provide you with a document of costs and an invoice under i think section 58 of the solicitors act. You can make a complaint against them. If they do not provide you with an invoice then you cannot send to the tax masters for review leaving no choice but to make a complaint.

I would personally like to see these solicitors ( In my experience ) severely reprimanded and i can assure you if they do not give a damn about the law society or the solictiors act they will care as little about your case and most importantly what your hoping to achieve from it.

The purpose of law and courts is in some respects to get closure and these dodgy offices are ad hoc with that completely and create even more turmoil.

I hope i don't sound like one the neurotics from rate your solicitor but i think the law society should be more willinging to suspend solicitors the same way the joe soap is willing to lock up a "scumbag" or the courts someone who has made a mistake with their insurance or civil courts who will bankrupt a citizen because they haven't updated their toll tag/address with the toll authority.

Here is a guide that might help you in making a complaint. Please let us know how you get along.


http://www.lawsociety.ie/Documents/c...s/conduct2.pdf

Thanks a lot for that. Unfortunately lodging a complaint about these people is the least of my worries at the moment as there is an important hearing due in a few weeks time and yeah, I'm supposed to be relying on these guys so it's worrying to say the least.

pirelli

MissHoneyBun wrote: »

Thanks a lot for that. Unfortunately lodging a complaint about these people is the least of my worries at the moment as there is an important hearing due in a few weeks time and yeah, I'm supposed to be relying on these guys so it's worrying to say the least.

I would get the law society involved ASAP. There is not much you can do if they screw things up for you, other than make another complaint or consider getting another solicitor to sue them.

In fact at the moment under the solcitors act you cannot even get another solictor until this crowd hand over the book/papers and you settle the fee. I would take urgent action and ask the law society to resolve it.

The solictor is meant to be polite under the guidlines and it is not acceptable for them to become aggressive and belligerent.

MissHoneyBun

pirelli wrote: »

I would take urgent action and ask the law society to resolve it.

The solictor is meant to be polite under the guidlines and it is not acceptable for them to become aggressive and belligerent.

Kind of what I was thinking alright, was hoping for my sanity that there was some chance that this conduct was normal.

Would making a complaint to the Law Society not involve a long, drawn out process though? Ie. I doubt anything would be resolved before the hearing in a few weeks, by which time it would be too late?

kkjohn

Clearly, you've lost trust with this firm ........ if so, are you happy to let them look after your hearing ? im sure it could be adjourned.

check around with some people and get the name of another solicitor and meet with them and see if they will take over your file

seeing as they did not give you a quote as soon as practicable, they should negotiate with your new solicitor on their fees due to date

leave your complaints to another day - focus on resolving your actual case first, which is probably emotional enough on its own

the delay in handing over file etc, could be 2 months min

pirelli

MissHoneyBun wrote: »

Kind of what I was thinking alright, was hoping for my sanity that there was some chance that this conduct was normal.

Would making a complaint to the Law Society not involve a long, drawn out process though? Ie. I doubt anything would be resolved before the hearing in a few weeks, by which time it would be too late?

The law society is the most efficent way of handling this. Everything you want to say to your solicitor put in writing to the law society and they will promplty pass it on to your solicitor as your complaint. In this way they would be very foolish to leave you hanging. Do not be afraid to include the manner of the phone call.

If you just take it on faith or try to get another solicitor you have no guarantee that the new solicitor will be sympathetic or treat you any better. The law society has set standards so i dont see why one should be any better than the next one.

There is a basic standard and it's better to have the law soceity on board early before this solicitors causes you unrepairable harm. they can advise you. I would just make sure you are there on the day and if you do get a new solicitor find out if you can sue them for breach of contract if they fail to appear on the day.

Tester46

pirelli wrote: »

Very normal. I have dealt with several solictors and they never issue invoices despite pating a generous fee so i am basing my post on this behaviour. In this instance OP i t isn't clear whether you have paid any fee as of yet and the relationship or arrangment you have with that solicitor.

However you have been in touch with the law society so you know they have to provide you with a document of costs and an invoice under i think section 58 of the solicitors act. You can make a complaint against them. If they do not provide you with an invoice then you cannot send to the tax masters for review leaving no choice but to make a complaint.

I would personally like to see these solicitors ( In my experience ) severely reprimanded and i can assure you if they do not give a damn about the law society or the solictiors act they will care as little about your case and most importantly what your hoping to achieve from it.

The purpose of law and courts is in some respects to get closure and these dodgy offices are ad hoc with that completely and create even more turmoil.

I hope i don't sound like one the neurotics from rate your solicitor but i think the law society should be more willinging to suspend solicitors the same way the joe soap is willing to lock up a "scumbag" or the courts someone who has made a mistake with their insurance or civil courts who will bankrupt a citizen because they haven't updated their toll tag/address with the toll authority.

Here is a guide that might help you in making a complaint. Please let us know how you get along.


http://www.lawsociety.ie/Documents/c...s/conduct2.pdf

Wow, from your post it sounds like you know every firm in Ireland and this firm in particular. How else could you so definitively state that the complained of behaviour is "very normal"?

I clearly don't have anything like your extensive experience of how every firm in the country operates, but I would agree with Reloc8 and say that this behaviour is neither normal nor acceptable.

dats_right

OP, most of the advice given to you so far re complaining to the Law Society is unlikely to get you very far and is probably jumping the gun a bit. Your priority should be and undoubtedly is getting the matter resolved, if after that you still feel aggrieved well then consider your options then, but your primary focus should be on your case. It would seem from your post that you are involved in some sort of litigation, possibly a family matter? Anyway, of course this is highly stressful, particularly if you are not used to dealing with the legal system or solicitors.

Reading between the lines you seem to be making contact with the firm very often, far more than normal, is there any particular reason why that is so? I'm not saying it is the case here but sometimes a client can be ringing a solicitor excessively with every little detail and taking up their solicitors time unnecessarily. In such cases the additional time spent on the phone, whether it be constatntly looking for status updates when there are none (your solicitor will usually contact you if necessary) or wanting to discuss their case endlessly will only result in frustrating your solicitor as he/she is kept from doing more pressing or immediate work and will lead to your fees being increased to cover the additional time the solicitor is spending on your case . So my advice to everybody is to think, is it really necessary, for me to contact them with this information before ringing their solicitor; because you must remember you are paying for their time so it is not a free service to pick up the phone just for a natter. It boils down to, if you want VIP service i.e. available at the drop of a hat expect to pay VIP prices too.

In regards to waiting a week for an appointment and making ten calls to get a response. Try see this from the other side for a moment. If you were busy and being hounded with calls what reaction would you have? Okay, it shouldn't take that long to make contact but over how long a period did you make those calls? A litigation solicitor can sometimes be out of the office for days on end. Especially if invloved in a court case. So there may be a reasonable explanation for not returning calls as quickly as you would like, also if you rang your solicitor 10 times over 2 or 3 days, I think the effect of that might be to annoy them rather then have them call you straight back, particularly if this sort of thing had happened before.

Remember whilst your case is absolute priority for you, your solicitor has to deal with dozens of cases at any one time and cannot always just drop everything to suit you. So I really don't think a week is an excessive time frame to wait for an appointment either.

Also you say that the firm increased their fee significantly, is there any particular reason why this might have been the case e.g. increased Court Apperances, Motions, Discovery, the matter being contentious, barristers advice being sought, etc. Or maybe even the nature and extent of the work being now necessary in your case far exceeding what was originally envisaged? In other words is there a good reason why the fees have increased?

Failing to provide you with a written estimate of costs is indeed a breach of section 68,but it does not mean that the firm is not entitled to charge those fees and more importantly that you don't have to pay them. So think long and hard about whether you want to make a complaint about your solicitor as it is unlikely to resolve your issues any sooner.

Also in what circumstances did they fail to

"notify me of court hearings and also failed to arrange to have any legal representative present on another occassion"?

Was it pre-trial Motions, etc where you would not necessarily be informed anyway or substantive hearings which required your presence? Was there an explanation for not having a representative in Court e.g. were they aware of date? Did they say that representation was conditional upon a portion of fees being paid upfront and no monies were recieved? Did they get dates mixed up?

I'm not criticising you OP, I'm just trying to say that just consider all of the possibilities before jumping to conclusions and making complaints. Because in fairness, we have only heard one side of the story and it is therefore virtually impossible to advise you one way or the other whether these things are normal or not.

Reloc8

I agree with all of that.

And especially the point that you need to recognise your priorities - first and foremost have the upcoming case dealt with, next and separately assess whether you wish to make a complaint about how you perceive yourself to have been treated. Ultimately a court is not going to let your differences with your representation prejudice/adversely influence the other party's case.

pirelli

Tester46 wrote: »

Wow, from your post it sounds like you know every firm in Ireland and this firm in particular. How else could you so definitively state that the complained of behaviour is "very normal"?

I clearly don't have anything like your extensive experience of how every firm in the country operates, but I would agree with Reloc8 and say that this behaviour is neither normal nor acceptable.

I do not know what method you use to estimate that such behaviour is not normal. However I can base my facts on a sampling frame because i use statistical sampling...

It is called sampling. As you might be aware your opinion is rarely ever sought in most changes that happen around you in the country. This is due to other people representing your views in random population samples.

I have worked in Marketing and you would be surprised how much emphaiss politicians put on statistics. If a market research company is asked to find out the suitability of hotel bed for board failte tester we might not even be asking you about it but will be gather data from a population sample and the report will be refelctive of the whole industry and that includes you.

It very commmon for politicians and even the gardai to a market research into anything from public perception of garda service at stations to the popularity of a particular policy and more usually the popularity of a politician etc. Mary Harney was a very big customer but ssh I didnt say that.

We can issue statistical values that indicate that from a population sample a substantial majority of solicitors do not comply with section 68 of the Solicitors amendment act 1994.

I do not need to know every firm in ireland by any means. In fact i was careful to say in my post that this was from my experience. Please don't test me on statistics as I have very good qualification in this field. You could if you so desire pick up a list of people from tribunials and courts and conduct a survey and the result would be quite concrete.

I don't see the point of your post tester46 if your just telling me in a sarcastic way that all solictors do normally comply with section 68 of the solicitors act. Since when was sarcasm (other than when your a school brat) an appropiate substitute for the scientific selection of data.

The law society might be a good port of call for these types of facts.

pirelli

dats_right wrote: »

OP, most of the advice given to you so far re complaining to the Law Society is unlikely to get you very far and is probably jumping the gun a bit.

Failing to provide you with a written estimate of costs is indeed a breach of section 68, but it does not mean that the firm is not entitled to charge those fees and more importantly that you don't have to pay them. So think long and hard about whether you want to make a complaint about your solicitor as it is unlikely to resolve your issues any sooner.

I'm not criticising you OP, I'm just trying to say that just consider all of the possibilities before jumping to conclusions and making complaints. Because in fairness, we have only heard one side of the story and it is therefore virtually impossible to advise you one way or the other whether these things are normal or not.

Reloc8 wrote: »

I agree with all of that.
.

Typical behaviour.

I know you put time into that post dats right but this lady has pointed out that this firm has failed to comply with section 68 of the Solicitors act. You have agreed that failing to provide a written estimate of costs is indeed a breach of the solicitors act.

I have asked and we do not know the true circumstances of the situation. I however am surprised at the contradictions in this thread. On one hand Tester46 disagrees with me and sides with reloc8 and says that this type of behaviour is not normal and is unacceptable.

Well if that is the case why isnt reloc8 saying it is unacceptable and advising accordingly. More than likely because it is the norm...

Clearly OP the most intelligent thing to do would be to go to the law soceity and attend the meeting or tribunial. This would sound very good to a judge should you find yourself alone in a court unrepresented.

Dats right is portraying a solicitor with dozens of cases ( too many ) with out enough time to deal with each one effectively. If a barrister is precluded from taking on so many cases that one interfere with the other than he/she is in breach of conduct.

The attitude that a solcitor can be as greedy as they like is typical. Solicitors like this indeed take on too many cases and have no regard for the solictors act or their client.

You should indeed read between the lines and listen to dats right as he explains a fustrated and extremely over loaded solicitor trying to cope with a hundred things at once. That's all these solicitors actually do is try to cope. They are almost imposible to get to actually do a quality job
(unless your major customer and a large corporation $$$$ ) and hence the reason they have not complied with section 68 of the solictors act.

Reloc8

pirelli wrote: »

On one hand Tester46 disagrees with me and sides with reloc8 and says that this type of behaviour is not normal and is unacceptable.

Well if that is the case why isnt reloc8 saying it is unacceptable and advising accordingly. More than likely because it is the norm...

What a bizarre piece of speculation. You'd think I was being asked to give advice or something. Perhaps if you read the opening post and the question asked, and then had a quick scan of the forum charter you'd come a little bit closer to understanding my answer.

However, you instead think that because I didn't 'advise accordingly' what is described by the OP is the norm. The lack of cause and effect, or in fact any connection between your conclusion and what it is based on is astonishing - especially for someone putting forward their experience in analysis of data and reaching reliable conclusions.

Anyway, if you prefer to deal in sweeping generalisations and assertions put forward as evidence then don't let me stand in your way - I answered the question asked.

Tester46

pirelli wrote: »

I however am surprised at the contradictions in this thread. On one hand Tester46 disagrees with me and sides with reloc8 and says that this type of behaviour is not normal and is unacceptable.

Well if that is the case why isnt reloc8 saying it is unacceptable and advising accordingly. More than likely because it is the norm...

First - to be fair to Reloc8, I simply meant I agreed with his/her answer to your question - "No it's not". Look at the second post in this thread.

Second - Reloc8 does not have to take any position just because I post something.

Third - I presume Reloc8 is trying to help you and give some opinions. If you choose to make your own interpretation of what is said, that's your own business. You appear to have your mind made up on this issue.

pirelli

Reloc8 wrote: »

What a bizarre piece of speculation. You'd think I was being asked to give advice or something. Perhaps if you read the opening post and the question asked, and then had a quick scan of the forum charter you'd come a little bit closer to understanding my answer.

However, you instead think that because I didn't 'advise accordingly' what is described by the OP is the norm. The lack of cause and effect, or in fact any connection between your conclusion and what it is based on is astonishing - especially for someone putting forward their experience in analysis of data and reaching reliable conclusions.

Anyway, if you prefer to deal in sweeping generalisations and assertions put forward as evidence then don't let me stand in your way - I answered the question asked.

Tester quoted you and i was free to use that quote and point out her interpretation that you find it unacceptable in your post was not reflected in your last post that agreed with Dat's right who feels that yes there was a breach of section 68 of the solictors act but that you shouldn't complain about it.

You gave your stamp of approval to that. Perhaps you might like to reconsider what your agreeing to before you accuse me of sweeping generalisation.

pirelli

Tester46 wrote: »

First - to be fair to Reloc8, I simply meant I agreed with his/her answer to your question - "No it's not". Look at the second post in this thread.

Second - Reloc8 does not have to take any position just because I post something.

Third - I presume Reloc8 is trying to help you and give some opinions. If you choose to make your own interpretation of what is said, that's your own business. You appear to have your mind made up on this issue.

Your overly presumptuous.

Reloc8

pirelli wrote: »

Tester quoted you and i was free to use that quote and point out her interpretation that you find it unacceptable in your post was not reflected in your last post that agreed with Dat's right who feels that yes there was a breach of section 68 of the solictors act but that you shouldn't complain about it.

Tester46

pirelli wrote: »

Your overly presumptuous.

Ahhh, OK. I think I see what is going on here. I think Pirelli is just being difficult and contrary for the sake of it. I just re-read that utterly bizarre post about statistical sampling from Pirelli and the only conclusion I can come to is that Pirelli is just taking the pi*s.

At least I hope that's what it is. Either way, I am done with this now.

pirelli

Reloc8 wrote: »

You gave your stamp of approval to dats right post. By doing so you agreed there was a breach of section 68 of the solicitors act and not to make a complaint to the law society.

Tester46 feels that you would actually find a breach of section 68 of the solicitors act unacceptable.


Is this correct ?

blueythebear

To the OP, the behaviour of your solicitor is unusual and presuming the 10 phonecalls you mention aren't in the one day, it would seem that your solicitor is being a bit slack to say the least. I'd recommend meeting your solicitor and talking it over with him and if they won't take your calls, send a registered letter outlining the situation, asking them to ring. If there's still no joy, inform them that you want to change solicitors. Do this before the hearing in a few weeks and instead of the matter being heard, they will come off record and the matter will be adjourned to allow your new solicitors prep the case.

As to the matter of the breach of S68 of the Solicitors Act, it is a breach of this section to not provide an outline/estimate of fees but this may not be practical in real terms. However, it would seem that they have admitted the breach (which is unusual) so that you can make a complaint about this to the Law Society or if you stick with your current solicitors, you can request that your bill goes to the Taxing Master for adjudication.

Maximilian

Enough bickering people. Stay on topic please or I'll have to close the thread.