Solicitors

ScumLord

I've heard plenty of complaining about the government but very little about this group that's had it's finger in every problem Ireland's had.

This is another institution of corruption, and worse their day to day effects on ordinary people can't be escaped. They actively worsen any argument for their own profit turning neighbours against each other. You might think that the neighbours argument is completely at their own doing but the amount of people I've seen or heard of going in for "just a bit of advice to see where I stand" and coming out "me, me me, I'm going to take as much as I can" is incredible, solicitors, make it so two people can't talk to each other with out paying the solicitor to come along and do everything in their power to exacerbate the problem for money.

As much as we need a new government with these kinds of people scheming away in the background we have no hope of a new Ireland. The law system in Ireland is corrupt and must be changed with the government. Very seriously I think it should be completely dismantled and rebuilt from the ground up. This country can't be improved with such a cancer in it's heart.

who what when

Couldnt agree more. I have a lot of dealings with solicitors on a day to basis and they really are vermin! Just as bad as drug dealers and gang members. Only difference is they wear suits to work!

prinz

Solicitors aren't so bad. It's the bloody barristers you have to watch out for.

MagicSean

I agree. They should be monitored independently too.

bonerm

ScumLord wrote: »

"me, me me, I'm going to take as much as I can"

This isn't solicitors fault. People are instinctively hardwired to be like this from the day they're born to the day they die. Even the ones who say they aren't are just lying to themselves (almost without exception). Solicitors , developers and bankers etc are just taking advantage of personal greed and self-obsession.

You'd have to almost go back to square one and raise every newborn child to think differently about themselves and everyone around them to ever change anything.

thebigbiffo

scroundrels the lot of them.

this is established the world over.

now can we lock this thread before someone says otherwise just to start a row?

FreudianSlippers

prinz wrote: »

Solicitors aren't so bad. It's the bloody barristers you have to watch out for.

Why?

k_mac wrote: »

I agree. They should be monitored independently too.

I think the Bar Council is doing a good job on its own. Why do you think they need independent monitoring. I know there are good arguments, but just wondering what your rationale is?:cool:

thebigbiffo

can we have the obligitory solicitor (lawyer) joke now?

what's the difference between a solicitor and a catfish?

one's a scum-sucking bottom feeder and the other's a fish.

i'm here all week...

arybvtcw0eolkf

who what when wrote: »

Couldnt agree more. I have a lot of dealings with solicitors on a day to basis and they really are vermin! Just as bad as drug dealers and gang members. Only difference is they wear suits to work!

Bile, I'd hate to have a belly full of it like you appear to have.

There are plenty of solicitors using this forum, why can't you just have a little cop-on and respect and not tar them all with the same brush.

Luckily enough I've had little dealings with solicitors, but of the times I have had only one has let me down.

Very recently I got completely free advice from someone here on boards for a friend of mine. Saved my friend a wad of money and helped him keep a completely clean career personal file.. And this was from someone I've never met, probably will never meet - thank you.

Annon people posting hatred from the comfort and safety of a username which mean's feck all to anyone really are pretty pathetic, you belittle yourself when you do it.

prinz

OisinT wrote: »

Why?

How are you doing my learned friend in the silk? :pac:. No offence but I dislike people arguing black is white one day, white is black the next depending on who is stumping up the cash. Too much room for spin in my opinion. Added to that an almost homogenous arrogance when putting questions to witnesses.

Should note that I'm approaching this tongue in cheek. Both solicitors and barristers can do a tip top job.

epgc3fyqirnbsx

bonerm wrote: »

This isn't solicitors fault. People are instinctively hardwired to be like this from the day they're born to the day they die. Even the ones who say they aren't are just lying to themselves (almost without exception). Solicitors , developers and bankers etc are just taking advantage of personal greed and self-obsession.

You'd have to almost go back to square one and raise every newborn child to think differently about themselves and everyone around them to ever change anything.

Nail on the head here

Solicitors are under a duty to inform their clients of the options available to them. If someone trips on a pavement and breaks their leg and on advice the solicitor doesn't inform them of any liabilities and potential compensation/remedy the the solicitor has failed in their duty and can be found to be negligent

They pass on information and facilitate requests. Why are there more personal injury cases these days? People have quite a high sense of entitlement and outrage hadn't you noticed. I also think following the US lead plays no small part

And no dount there are plenty of ambulance chasing solicitors who many quite rightly wouldn't think too highly of.

But there are many different types of solicitors, working in different areas, and also doing a very necessary job. If you dont think so you're being naive. You only need to educate yourself a little to realise this.

As in all walks of life, dont tar everyone with....

orourkeda

prinz wrote: »

Solicitors aren't so bad. It's the bloody barristers you have to watch out for.

And the judges if you're unfortunate to be put in front of one.

epgc3fyqirnbsx

prinz wrote: »

How are you doing my learned friend in the silk? :pac:. No offence but I dislike people arguing black is white one day, white is black the next depending on who is stumping up the cash. Too much room for spin in my opinion. Added to that an almost homogenous arrogance when putting questions to witnesses.

That's how adversarial systems work.

Can you think of a better one?

Sharia law perhaps?

prinz

Aron Damaged Widower wrote: »

That's how adversarial systems work.
Can you think of a better one? Sharia law perhaps?

Or you know, a greater influence of a civil code like most of the rest of Europe.

epgc3fyqirnbsx

prinz wrote: »

Or you know, a greater influence of a civil code like most of the rest of Europe.

That's fair enough, I respect that opinion but that would be a legislative issue and a matter for the courts rather than those who are just representing their clients as best they can

prinz

Aron Damaged Widower wrote: »

That's fair enough, I respect that opinion but that would be a legislative issue and a matter for the courts rather than those who are just representing their clients as best they can

True. Doesn't mean I have to like them. Meh, most are fine. Wanted to be a barrister myself at one stage.

MagicSean

OisinT wrote: »

I think the Bar Council is doing a good job on its own. Why do you think they need independent monitoring. I know there are good arguments, but just wondering what your rationale is?:cool:

Just so we're clear, I am agreeing with the statement that the system needs restructuring. As it stands, imo barristers are too far seperated from their clients and the people they represent. I was at a serious trial recently where this really struck me. The defence tore strips off the victim in the stand and the prosecuting barrister did nothing, even in his redirect. If he had had any knowledge of the case or the victim he would have easily been able to spin it back. I could have done it myself. But he could barely even remember the victims name. It is not the only time I've seen this kind of thing either.

As to the independent monitoring, I have had a few personal experiences with solicitors where the law society showed little to no interest in getting involved. I would look at it in the same way as the Garda complaints office was looked at. There is just too much potential for corruption on cronyism.

epgc3fyqirnbsx

prinz wrote: »

True. Doesn't mean I have to like them. Meh, most are fine. Wanted to be a barrister myself at one stage.

No you don't have to like them. Sure everyone hates barristers, especially solicitors

Elevator

in my opinion the legal system is one of many needing a radical overhaul!!

the language they use is ridiculous in this day and age,

and don't get me started with barristers, the getup of them really gets under my skin!!

COYW

Elevator wrote: »

in my opinion the legal system is one of many needing a radical overhaul!!

the language they use is ridiculous in this day and age,

and don't get me started with barristers, the getup of them really gets under my skin!!

I seriously hope that this lot get investigated next. Have no time for them whatsoever.

drkpower

prinz wrote: »

No offence but I dislike people arguing black is white one day, white is black the next depending on who is stumping up the cash.

Understanding and arguing both sides of an argument is an incredibly important skill. If more people in this country were capable of it (or at least tried it), we might be in a better state.

On the OP, people are, in almost all cases, free not to employ a solicitor and go it alone. Or you could do the sensible thing and try and find a good solicitor; there are a few around if you look hard enough; rather than throwing your toys out of the poram and complaining that they are all rubbish.

FreudianSlippers

k_mac wrote: »

Just so we're clear, I am agreeing with the statement that the system needs restructuring. As it stands, imo barristers are too far seperated from their clients and the people they represent. I was at a serious trial recently where this really struck me. The defence tore strips off the victim in the stand and the prosecuting barrister did nothing, even in his redirect. If he had had any knowledge of the case or the victim he would have easily been able to spin it back. I could have done it myself. But he could barely even remember the victims name. It is not the only time I've seen this kind of thing either.

As to the independent monitoring, I have had a few personal experiences with solicitors where the law society showed little to no interest in getting involved. I would look at it in the same way as the Garda complaints office was looked at. There is just too much potential for corruption on cronyism.

I agree about solicitors needing to be closely monitored, but I don't think the Bar Council needs independent interference.

As far as aloof barristers, it sounds in your example that the defendant just had a bad barrister, or else there was no way of spinning it in his favour.
The solicitor acts for the client and the barrister makes those representations on behalf of the client to the court - but the barrister's duty is to the court: not to mislead the court etc.
It is the independent nature of the bar that makes our system superior to fused profession countries.

Barristers do not "represent" the client. They appear on behalf of the client. As such barristers cannot be directly employed by clients, they must be employed by solicitors.

duracell_bunny

Aron Damaged Widower wrote: »

No you don't have to like them. Sure everyone hates barristers, especially solicitors

And everyone hates Solicitors - especially Barristers!!

MagicSean

OisinT wrote: »

I agree about solicitors needing to be closely monitored, but I don't think the Bar Council needs independent interference.

As far as aloof barristers, it sounds in your example that the defendant just had a bad barrister, or else there was no way of spinning it in his favour.
The solicitor acts for the client and the barrister makes those representations on behalf of the client to the court - but the barrister's duty is to the court: not to mislead the court etc.
It is the independent nature of the bar that makes our system superior to fused profession countries.

Barristers do not "represent" the client. They appear on behalf of the client. As such barristers cannot be directly employed by clients, they must be employed by solicitors.

I'm not referring to any kind of misleading. The same set of facts can make a person look good or bad depending on wether they are put in the correct context. If barristers do not represent the client why is there any need for them?

prinz

drkpower wrote: »

Understanding and arguing both sides of an argument is an incredibly important skill. If more people in this country were capable of it (or at least tried it), we might be in a better state..

True no qualms with that, as long as the barristers can accept the consequences of thse actions - i.e. becoming at times unpopular. The again I'd prefer more of a Civil influence myself like I said.

Nothing turned me off the law more than watching some smug gits walking out of court with a smirk knowing they've done the best for their 'clients' who obviously haven't answered for their actions. Hope it's worth the paycheck.

p.s. Planning on going back to it myself, so may have to eat these words yet.

drkpower

prinz wrote: »

Nothing turned me off the law more than watching some smug gits walking out of court with a smirk knowing they've done the best for their 'clients' who obviously haven't answered for their actions. Hope it's worth the paycheck.

Seems you have a gripe with a system that allows guilty/evil/morally culpable men go free. Who doesnt? But the role of an advocate is to advocate for their client; once that advocate is permitted to act against the interests of their own client, what do we have left?

prinz

drkpower wrote: »

Seems you have a gripe with a system that allows guilty/evil/morally culpable men go free. Who doesnt?

Not exactly. I have a gripe with certain barristers who know that this goes on and then apparently can't understand why some people might have issues with barristers. Guilty people are always going to walk free eventually but that's not what this thread is about. Plenty of barristers I am sure are great at their jobs and good people, but I amo going to pretend that I think it's all rosy. Occupational hazard if you will, and back to my original point, one that is much easier to ascribe to barristers than it is to solicitors, in my opinion.

ejmaztec

I used to deal with a barrister, but they fell out with me when I refused to fiddle their vat return. That's just one barrister though.

th3 s1aught3r

OisinT wrote: »

As far as aloof barristers, it sounds in your example that the defendant just had a bad barrister, or else there was no way of spinning it in his favour.
.

Barristers eat babies

drkpower

prinz wrote: »

Not exactly. I have a gripe with certain barristers who know that this goes on and then apparently can't understand why some people might have issues with barristers. Guilty people are always going to walk free eventually but that's not what this thread is about. Plenty of barristers I am sure are great at their jobs and good people, but I amo going to pretend that I think it's all rosy. Occupational hazard if you will, and back to my original point, one that is much easier to ascribe to barristers than it is to solicitors, in my opinion.

You are right with the last point; representing people who have done bad things is part of the job. I consider myself to be in a very morally upright spehere of the law, and I consider the work i do to be worthy and in society's interests (ok, maybe im over-egging the pudding now....;)), but there are no doubt people (usually on the other side) who consider me to be the devil incarnate, defending the indefensible and reprehensible. Thats the life of an advocate in an adversial system.

Why you think barristers are more deserving of abuse is beyond me; in most cases, certainly the ones i deal with, the solicitor (if he is any good) determines the strategy and instructs the barrister to execute it. Dont see why the solicitor gets a pass from you...!?

prinz

drkpower wrote: »

Why you think barristers are more deserving of abuse is beyond me; in most cases, certainly the ones i deal with, the solicitor (if he is any good) determines the strategy and instructs the barrister to execute it. Dont see why the solicitor gets a pass from you...!?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I was being tongue in cheek with my first comment. Neither is more deserving of abuse, but as the barrister is often the more public face, especially in high profile cases, (not to mention the releasing of earnings by barristers at the tribunals etc.) it's not suprising that they would come in for a lot more stick than solicitors.

who what when

Harleigh Substantial License wrote: »

Bile, I'd hate to have a belly full of it like you appear to have.

There are plenty of solicitors using this forum, why can't you just have a little cop-on and respect and not tar them all with the same brush.

Luckily enough I've had little dealings with solicitors, but of the times I have had only one has let me down.

Very recently I got completely free advice from someone here on boards for a friend of mine. Saved my friend a wad of money and helped him keep a completely clean career personal file.. And this was from someone I've never met, probably will never meet - thank you.

Annon people posting hatred from the comfort and safety of a username which mean's feck all to anyone really are pretty pathetic, you belittle yourself when you do it.

Boards is a disussion forum where people are enouraged to discuss their opinions and life experiences in an anonymous manner. Do you expect me to give my name and phone number whenever i say something negative?

Unlike you i deal with solicitors on an almost daily basis and they are exactly as i described. If you dont like it too bad!

FreudianSlippers

th3 s1aught3r wrote: »

Barristers eat babies

With caviar on top they're amazing.

duracell_bunny

There's good and bad in both professions. I've worked for both Solicitors and Barristers.

Two of the three barristers I've worked for (one of whom would be up there with the best in the country) are as straight as they come. I'd trust them both completely. The other is just sh*t at his job. If they are any good, they can make a really good case for both sides of any argument. They study previous case law to convince the court that their side of the argument is more valid than the other sides.

Solicitors have far more opportunity to be dodgy. Out of the seven solicitors I've worked for, two were outstanding and if I ever needed the services of a solicitor I'd call them without hesitation. Of the others, most were just incompetent or sloppy/lazy or (in the case of junior ones) just so ridiculously overworked so that a good few mistakes happened due to the sheer volume of work they were pushing through. Only one was crooked and he is about as crooked as they come - forging wills, forging client's signatures on mortgages/deeds of transfer etc, pocketing stamp duty and then paying it when rates for that category had dropped etc.

FreudianSlippers

prinz wrote: »

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I was being tongue in cheek with my first comment. Neither is more deserving of abuse, but as the barrister is often the more public face, especially in high profile cases, (not to mention the releasing of earnings by barristers at the tribunals etc.) it's not suprising that they would come in for a lot more stick than solicitors.

You can't really compare barristers that do tribunal work with regular barristers.

ScumLord

bonerm wrote: »

This isn't solicitors fault. People are instinctively hardwired to be like this from the day they're born to the day they die. Even the ones who say they aren't are just lying to themselves (almost without exception). Solicitors , developers and bankers etc are just taking advantage of personal greed and self-obsession.

I don't think it's fair to assume every one would step over their mothers to make a quick buck, it's just simply not the case in most dealings, my parents have been in the process of separating for over 15 years! And both sides would have agreed it's because of the solicitors dragging it out and being unable to come to a conclusion instead wanting complete victory over he opponent.
Both my parents had moved on in their life, had met other people and where living better life's but the solicitors saw to it that they could never speak to each other again.

I'm not as such calling out the individuals that are in the law profession as scum. I'm saying the system they operate gives them no option but to act in the wrong matter and their goals are not in the best interest of the client.

My parents example is what's wrong with the profession their goal wasn't to solve the argument, it was to win as much money as they could or defend as much money as they could. On paper that seems logical but in real life it's no good to anyone.

Once they become involved it's a battle where someone wins and someone loses, it's not about resolution or fairness is crude survival of the fittest, it's not at all civilised no matter how much gloss they rap it up in.

drkpower

ScumLord wrote: »

Both my parents had moved on in their life, had met other people and where living better life's but the solicitors saw to it that they could never speak to each other again.

What a load of tosh:D.

If your parents wanted it ended, they could simply tell their solicitors to end it, or sack their solicitors and deal with each other like adults. They chose to instruct solicitors; they chose to allow the thing to go on for 15 years.

It sounds like your darling parents are blaming someone else for the continuation of their squabbling. Sounds like they are people who dont like taking responsibility for their own actions.

Wolfe Tone

OisinT: The evil Barrister. :pac:


Ah they are not that bad. Sure I want to become one myself. There are good and bad in every profession.

FreudianSlippers

I am evil

ScumLord

drkpower wrote: »

What a load of tosh:D.

If your parents wanted it ended, they could simply tell their solicitors to end it, or sack their solicitors and deal with each other like adults. They chose to instruct solicitors; they chose to allow the thing to go on for 15 years.

It sounds like your darling parents are blaming someone else for the continuation of their squabbling. Sounds like they are people who dont like taking responsibility for their own actions.

Can you get separated in this country without a solicitor? This also happened 15 years ago when separations weren't tolerated by local community's which added another dimension to it. They had deals done out but solicitors made advice, it's hard for a person to want one thing but be told they'd be a fool not to do something else.

My parents obviously split for a reason so weren't on the best of terms at all. But they lived in different countries after they separated. The only thing dragging it out in the end was solicitors actions and demands.

kowloon

The thing that really annoys me, more than it should, is the stupid dress code, what exactly is the point of it all?

Lumen

Barristers are hot.

I think it's the horsehair that does it.

ejmaztec

ScumLord wrote: »

Can you get separated in this country without a solicitor? This also happened 15 years ago when separations weren't tolerated by local community's which added another dimension to it. They had deals done out but solicitors made advice, it's hard for a person to want one thing but be told they'd be a fool not to do something else.

My parents obviously split for a reason so weren't on the best of terms at all. But they lived in different countries after they separated. The only thing dragging it out in the end was solicitors actions and demands.

It's always in the best interests of a solicitor that a case is dragged out for as long as possible. What can start of quite civilised, turns into mayhem, mainly due to each solicitor inciting their clients to go for the throat. After about 50 items of correspondence down the line, people start fighting for custody of a biscuit tin that someone gave as a wedding gift years before.

drkpower

ScumLord wrote:

Can you get separated in this country without a solicitor? .

Yes. But more importantly, 2 adults can agree to anything they want to and then tell their solicitors to piss off. Its not the solicitors fault that, when told by their solicitors what they could 'get' (thats called 'legal advice'), your parents decided to fight to try and get more than other rather than sitting down like adults and resolving the problem.

ScumLord wrote:

My parents obviously split for a reason so weren't on the best of terms at all. But they lived in different countries after they separated. The only thing dragging it out in the end was solicitors actions and demands. .

If your parents demanded it end, it would have ended. But its a lot easier to blame someone else for your problems.

ejmaztec wrote: »

It's always in the best interests of a solicitor that a case is dragged out for as long as possible.

Only if hourly rates are being charged. If a fixed fee is agreed in advance (which is more and more the norm, and rightly so), a solicitor loses money the more a case drags.

latenia

I saw some of my best friends enter Blackhall Place and emerge as the most venal, smarmy, self-righteous, dishonest shower of cúnts you could imagine.

Dubh Geannain

An engineer died and reported to the pearly gates. An newly annointed angel, filling in for St. Peter, checked his dossier and grimly said, "Ah, you're an engineer; you're in the wrong place."

So the engineer was cast down to the gates of hell and was let in. Pretty soon, the engineer became gravely dissatisfied with the level of comfort in hell, and began designing and building improvements. After a while, the underworld had air conditioning, flush toilets, and escalators, and the engineer was becoming a pretty popular guy among the demons.

One day, God called Satan up on the telephone and asked with a sneer, "So, how's it going down there in hell?"

Satan laughed and replied, "Hey, things are going great. We've got air conditioning and flush toilets and escalators, and there's no telling what this engineer is going to come up with next."

God's face clouded over and he exploded, "What? You've got an engineer? That's a mistake; he should never have gotten down there; send him up here."

Satan shook his head, "No way. I like having an engineer on the staff, and I'm keeping him."

God was as mad as he had ever been, "This is not the way things are supposed to work and you know it. Send him back up here or I'll sue."

Satan laughed uproariously, "Yeah, right. And just where are YOU going to get a lawyer?"

:cool:

prinz

latenia wrote: »

I saw some of my best friends enter Blackhall Place and emerge as the most venal, smarmy, self-righteous, dishonest shower of cúnts you could imagine.

Really? I thought they were entry requirements... :pac:

ejmaztec

drkpower wrote: »

Only if hourly rates are being charged. If a fixed fee is agreed in advance (which is more and more the norm, and rightly so), a solicitor loses money the more a case drags.

Until they come up with the "extras" that were mentioned in the small print as being excluded from the quote.

latenia

prinz wrote: »

Really? I thought they were entry requirements... :pac:

Well, maybe the rot set in at TCD Law School...

drkpower

ejmaztec wrote: »

Until they come up with the "extras" that were mentioned in the small print as being excluded from the quote.

Then read the fcukin small print and tell them you are not accepting it. FFS, why cant people grow a pair and speak up for yourself rather than play the victim constantly. No wonder the country is in a shambles when its made up of such a bunch of pussies.

thebaz

agree 100 % , the legal profession is populated mainly by a small group of blackrock/gonzaga educated elitists , where no one can question there authority - just look at the fiasco of the tribunals - they have been going on for over 10 years , and what they have given us i dont know, they can't even confirm that certain politicians , who every dog in the street know is corrupt is actually so ... the one thing they do know how to do, is charge excessively for their so called expertise ... not forgetting that arrogant manner t

p.s. not all legal types are so, but a trip to the law library is quite revealing, if you can get in , that is