Family Law solicitor charged 20k since February

Hannaho

Hi! I am involved in family law case which has cost 20k since February. There has only been one trip to court, but endless letters to the other side, who have been described by my solicitor as extremely difficult.

I previously questioned my solicitor's fees, but didn't change solicitor. Then my cousin who is a solicitor and my friend, who is a barrister, said that my solicitor got me involved in a very expensive family law process, which was absolutely unnecessary, and which had the potential to backfire on me. However, when I questioned my solicitor about the road he had taken me down, saying that my cousin, a solicitor, (he has a general rule that he doesn't take on family!), and my friend, a barrister, had queried why he chose the route he did for my case, he said he did not want to act for me anymore. What is this all about? Is it not possible to query the route a solicitor chooses for a client? What will happen if I find his final bill really excessive - he is talking about another 8k - will another solicitor start afresh and take the case, if I dispute the fees of the original solicitor. My cousin thinks I have been railroaded!

Would really appreciate any advice.

Procrastastudy

You and your 'legal team' questioned the solicitor's professionalism. Fair enough, its obviously very dependant on how its done but you had to realise the possibility of the solicitor thinking that this was all more trouble than it was worth.

If you've a query over the course taken then I believe you can make a complaint to the Law Society or if it's specifically the fee, I believe its the taxing master. I'm open to correction of course.

Reloc8

You didn't just question his advice you more or less outright told him he'd dragged you down an unnecessary and expensive road which could backfire and that your other lawyers had told you that. I can
Understand why he doesn't want to act for you anymore as it would seem you don't have trust and confidence in him.

You'll have to
Pay him for the work done - that's between
You, him and the law society, and it's always more expensive to get someone else to take up the job but that's between you and the new solicitor.

But hey if youre cousin the solicitor and friend the barrister were right then they saved you lots of money and the risk
Of it backfiring no ?

Ps I love that your cousin declined to act for family
Members but feels happy enough giving parrallel legal advice on their situations - very wise

nuac

I agree with Reloc8 comments re the cousin a solicitor and the friend a barrister. It is unusual and unwise for a number of reasons to comment on a case being handled by another lawyer

Years ago I was doing a very difficult right of way case. it was well advanced when the client mentioned her relationship to a very well known solicitor, and that she had mentioned the case to him. In fairnesss to the well known solicitor rang me shortly after that to say he had refused to get involved, to carry on.

If a client told me that a lawyer friend and/or relative was also advising I would be out of there pronto.

Predalien

Sounds like a very difficult situation, although I would question the solicitors professionalism where a client has merely questioned the route taken. Surely the more professional way of doing things would be to explain the reasons for going that way and why he considered it the best course of action. A good solicitor would be able to articulate his justification for the route taken and not just take the hump and drop the client straight away. Childish behaviour if you ask me.

Procrastastudy

Predalien wrote: »

Sounds like a very difficult situation, although I would question the solicitors professionalism where a client has merely questioned the route taken. Surely the more professional way of doing things would be to explain the reasons for going that way and why he considered it the best course of action. A good solicitor would be able to articulate his justification for the route taken and not just take the hump and drop the client straight away. Childish behaviour if you ask me.

Obviously we've no idea how the situation was broached by the OP meaning any opinion is as valid as the other.

MagicSean

If his solicitor couldn't explain or justify the course he had taken and instead through a hissy fit then it's very possible it was a bad course of action.

A solicitor isn't there to take things into his own hands, he is there to act on the instructions of his client and advise him. If the client has doubts it's up to the solicitor to put them at ease and ensure the course of action is what the client wants.

Pat Mustard

First, I can see why your solicitor was annoyed with your cousin. It’s bad form for a solicitor to get involved in a case while another solicitor is still engaged. Of course, you can transfer your file to whichever solicitor you wish, if you are unhappy with the service.

Secondly, is there any other relevant information here? Have your cousin and his barrister been involved throughout the process or was it just one occasion?

With your cousin advising you in the background, it seems unlikely that you could mend the relationship with your existing solicitor, in case you had considered such a course of action.

In any event, you need a solicitor to progress the case for you. It seems that you have faith in your cousin, even if he is unwilling to act. If your cousin is a solicitor that you trust, then you could ask him to recommend a new solicitor to progress matters for you.

You have mentioned fees. Have you previously agreed fees or a basis for charging with your solicitor?

Hannaho

Hi! Thanks for reply. It's a divorce case with other issues, so it's for the long haul. I was looking for another solicitor anyway, as I wasn't happy with some things, and have found one that was recommended by a friend. We parted on good terms, but I just didn't really understand her point about asking my cousins, a solicitor and barrister, about things. I just saw it as asking others for another perspective, but obviously this was no his perspective. I was just interested to know what people thought as I didn't want to fall in to the same trap again. The next time, I might just say that I heard sometines there is a this or that option, rather than saying that a fellow professional told me something.

Just wondering what is S.68 all about. If doesn't to me seem to hold any teeth as, for instance, if the solicitor doesn't given an estimate, but explains how costs may be calculated, sure they could be explaining aways costs ad infinitum, leading to a very expensive bill. I know there is the Law Society and the Taxing Master, but I presume these processes are both quite lenghty - maybe someone could enlighten me about it.

Pat Mustard

Hannaho wrote: »

Just wondering what is S.68 all about.

See here. A solicitor is supposed to give a written account of either the actual charges, an estimate of the charges, or the basis upon which he intends to charge (for example, an hourly charge).

Reloc8

MagicSean wrote: »

If his solicitor couldn't explain or justify the course he had taken and instead through a hissy fit then it's very possible it was a bad course of action.

He/she might have simply chosen not to do so, realising that their client-relationship was no longer one of trust and confidence. There's no suggestion he/she had a 'hissy fit'.

MagicSean wrote: »

A solicitor isn't there to take things into his own hands, he is there to act on the instructions of his client and advise him. If the client has doubts it's up to the solicitor to put them at ease and ensure the course of action is what the client wants.

No, not necessarily, or rather not in all circumstances. Some clients have doubts and they can't be assuaged.

Again, the client for whatever reason loses trust and confidence in the solicitor - doesn't really matter why, once its happened.

When it does, a competent and ethical lawyer would in those circumstances decline to act further and tell the client to get representation elsewhere.

To be frank, I don't think you understand the solicitor-client relationship very well, or the ethical and professional considerations involved. To suggest that he (or she) must act on the instructions of a client is simply not correct, or at least not to the extreme that you present. A solicitor is entitled to decline to act, which is what happened here. Inasmuch as he 'took matters into his own hands' it was perfectly permissible and in fact proper that he did so.

James Jones

Hannaho wrote: »

Just wondering what is S.68 all about. If doesn't to me seem to hold any teeth as, for instance, if the solicitor doesn't given an estimate, but explains how costs may be calculated, sure they could be explaining aways costs ad infinitum, leading to a very expensive bill. I know there is the Law Society and the Taxing Master, but I presume these processes are both quite lenghty - maybe someone could enlighten me about it.

Section 68 has helped me to get money back from (or out of) 3 separate solicitors acting for me on 3 separate matters.

1. A threat of a complaint to Law Society resulted in the return of €5,000 + VAT taken from a road traffic accident settlement claim after I was told the settlement was full and final and no cost to me.
2. €3,500 returned after complaint about lack of Section 68 letter in Family Law case.
3. Threat of complaint to Law Society resulted in my extorting €2,000 from a solicitor who failed to give proper advice and sought written opinion from barrister without asking me. Matter was an Equal Status complaint. Complaint had to be made within 2 months but solicitor only forwarded barrister opinion after 3 months had elapsed. Told me he'd take me to court for his bill (€300)and the barristers bill (€650) but he did not adhere to Section 68.-(8)

(8) Where a solicitor has issued a bill of costs to a client in respect of the provision of legal services and the client disputes the amount (or any part thereof) of that bill of costs, the solicitor shall—
(a) take all appropriate steps to resolve the matter by agreement with the client, and
(b) inform the client in writing of—
(i) the client's right to require the solicitor to submit the bill of costs or any part thereof to a Taxing Master of the High Court for taxation on a solicitor and own client basis, and
(ii) the client's right to make a complaint to the Society under section 9 of this Act that he has been issued with a bill of costs that he claims to be excessive.

Pat Mustard

James Jones wrote: »

3 separate solicitors acting for me on 3 separate matters.

This speaks volumes.

RATM

James Jones wrote: »

Section 68 has helped me to get money back from (or out of) 3 separate solicitors acting for me on 3 separate matters.

The Mustard wrote: »

This speaks volumes.

Yeah it does. There seems to be a lot of either miscommunication about what is expected to be paid for X amount of work or else just downright overcharging. From what I can see the profession is in a state of disarray at the moment with the amount of rogue members being exposed on what seems to be an almost weekly basis at this stage. There are mini-Michael Lynns up and down the country and their cases are coming thick and fast at the moment. So when you see the amount of high level fraud and theft that has gone on in the profession then it is not that hard to conceive that lower levels of fraud (in the form of overcharging) are also common.

Doesn't our Minister for Justice have a pending case against his solicitors practice for overcharging ? AFAIR he charged €600k for a divorce settlement. €600k to settle a divorce sounds like an insane sum of money to me and I'm sure many others.

MagicSean

The Mustard wrote: »

This speaks volumes.

It's an area where customer satisfaction appears to be quite low?

Reloc8

MagicSean wrote: »

It's an area where customer satisfaction appears to be quite low?

Mmmm.

You don't hear so much about the ones where the client is delighted with the service.

Also nobody tracks or pays any heed to the solicitor's satisfaction :pac:

Are complaints to Garda Ombudsman reflective of satisfaction with gardai generally ?

What about people who don't even make such a complaint but complain generally ? Are they a reliable barometer ?

Pat Mustard

MagicSean wrote: »

It's an area where customer satisfaction appears to be quite low?

It's a red flag for a type for a particular type of client.

Alfred Pennyworth put it so:

Some men just want to watch the world burn.

MagicSean

The Mustard wrote: »

It's a red flag for a type for a particular type of client.

Alfred Pennyworth put it so:

I've had three solicitors for three different matters. The first solicitor turned out to be pretty bad. I believe he is no longer allowed practice. Funnily enough when I mentioned it here the blame was thrown at me for hiring a "dodgy" solicitor. You'd think they advertise themselves as dodgy. Perhaps if the industry had been better at regulating itself we wouldn't have had the problems we did with him.

The second solicitor was for the purchase of my house. Price was agreed beforehand and no problems were had. I recommended him to others. I'd use him again for property matters.

The third solicitor was for personal injury. He advised me that "If I were to charge you over x for this case you should be reporting me to the law society. He charged me 33% more. If I were to have another personal injury case I would likely go somewhere else.

So what kind of client am I?

MagicSean

Reloc8 wrote: »

Mmmm.

You don't hear so much about the ones where the client is delighted with the service.

Also nobody tracks or pays any heed to the solicitor's satisfaction :pac:

Are complaints to Garda Ombudsman reflective of satisfaction with gardai generally ?

What about people who don't even make such a complaint but complain generally ? Are they a reliable barometer ?

Not sure what the Garda Ombudsman has to do with this. You can't choose to go somewhere else if you're unhappy with the Gardaí. You can if you are unhappy with your solicitor, but apparently this is a "red flag" to other solicitors.

Pat Mustard

MagicSean wrote: »

So what kind of client am I?

You're a Guard.

Reloc8

MagicSean wrote: »

Not sure what the Garda Ombudsman has to do with this. You can't choose to go somewhere else if you're unhappy with the Gardaí. You can if you are unhappy with your solicitor, but apparently this is a "red flag" to other solicitors.

I think the analogy used is perfectly obvious and apposite.

'lack of customer satisfaction' as evidenced by fact of complaints does not mean anything in and of itself, no more so than multiple complaints about gardai evidences any wrong doing on the part of one garda or gardai generally.

The fact of complaint has nothing to do with whether the complaint is well founded in each instance.

To revert to the dis-ease which a solicitor may have about taking on a client who has been through numerous other firms, the question for the solicitor is whether the client has just been unlucky several times, or whether the client is very awkward and tends to fall out with their legal adviser for no valid reason, particularly if the solicitor knows or knows of the other practitioners and considers them to be competent and reasonable.

Its a perfectly reasonable concern for the solicitor to have - of course it can arise in very straightforward situations (client used firm A for a personal injury claim and firm B for an employment law problem) which would not arouse the same suspicion that one is being asked to take on work for a person who is impossible to keep happy. Ultimately the solicitor never has to take on the work if they don't want to and are entitled to size up their client in deciding whether they wish to act or not.

MagicSean

Reloc8 wrote: »

I think the analogy used is perfectly obvious and apposite.

'lack of customer satisfaction' as evidenced by fact of complaints does not mean anything in and of itself, no more so than multiple complaints about gardai evidences any wrong doing on the part of one garda or gardai generally.

The fact of complaint has nothing to do with whether the complaint is well founded in each instance.

To revert to the dis-ease which a solicitor may have about taking on a client who has been through numerous other firms, the question for the solicitor is whether the client has just been unlucky several times, or whether the client is very awkward and tends to fall out with their legal adviser for no valid reason, particularly if the solicitor knows or knows of the other practitioners and considers them to be competent and reasonable.

Its a perfectly reasonable concern for the solicitor to have - of course it can arise in very straightforward situations (client used firm A for a personal injury claim and firm B for an employment law problem) which would not arouse the same suspicion that one is being asked to take on work for a person who is impossible to keep happy. Ultimately the solicitor never has to take on the work if they don't want to and are entitled to size up their client in deciding whether they wish to act or not.

The Mustards comment was not in relation to the number of complaints made by the op but solely to the number of solicitors retained by him in the past. If he had meant it to relate to more he would have quoted more of the post. Without any knowledge of what the previous cases were in relation to it seems quite dismissive to judge a potential client based on this criteria. Solicitors specialise in different areas so it's perfectly reasonable to go to ones that specialise in the type of case you are taking.

His comment indicated that the use of different solicitors was spoke to the character of the op. I found that very cynical. My point was that it can just as easily relate to the level of professionalism within the industry and without further information it does not actually "speak volumes"

horsemaster

Might be a good idea to speak with the Law Society, OP.

Pat Mustard

To clarify, we are talking about the James Jones post, not the OP.

MagicSean wrote: »

Solicitors specialise in different areas so it's perfectly reasonable to go to ones that specialise in the type of case you are taking.

Agreed.

MagicSean wrote: »

The Mustards comment was not in relation to the number of complaints made by the op but solely to the number of solicitors retained by him in the past. If he had meant it to relate to more he would have quoted more of the post. Without any knowledge of what the previous cases were in relation to it seems quite dismissive to judge a potential client based on this criteria.

Look on it this way. If a guy walks in off the street having had a string of previous solicitors, that's a red flag. Not a red card, but a signal nonetheless.

If the guy then starts denigrating decent, honest colleagues or has stories of ungrounded complaints, he can find somebody else with whom to do business.

On the other hand, there may be a perfectly adequate explanation for having a number of solicitors. It is worth asking.

MagicSean wrote: »

His comment indicated that the use of different solicitors was spoke to the character of the op. I found that very cynical.

It may appear cynical. However, just look at the tenor of the post by James Jones.

MagicSean wrote: »

My point was that it can just as easily relate to the level of professionalism within the industry and without further information it does not actually "speak volumes"

I don't agree. In the case of the James Jones post, there is plenty of information. For example:

Threat of complaint to Law Society resulted in my extorting €2,000

JBG2011

If the original post is giving us the complete picture, 20k seems to be excessive for amount of work described. There is nothing wrong with a solicitor charging very high fees provided that s/he has discussed the matter with the client at the outset, provided a written quote and agreed the basis of fees with the client. A client cannot complain if a solicitor has always been upfront and transparent about his costs.

However, a solicitor is legally obliged to provide a client with a written breakdown of how fees are charged and he should warn clients if costs are mounting. I suspect that this did not happen in this case and this may well be a disciplinary issue with the Law Society. If a sect. 68 letter was not provided then there is a very good chance that the bill can be significantly reduced.

However, I suspect that in past cases involving sect. 68 disputes a copy of a purported sect. 68 letter will magically appear on the solicitor's file if the matter goes before the law society and then it becomes a case of who the Law Society believes. Obviously I've no proof of this, but I suspect it may have happened in the past.

Very few solicitors will take on a case where a client owes money to another firm. A solicitor is supposed to ensure that a previous firm's bills have been discharged before taking over the work. This is to stop clients avoiding paying fees and ripping solicitors off, which has happened since time immorial, just like any other business. There are solicitors out there who will ignore that rule, however.

It is very difficult for a friend/family member who is a lawyer not to pass comment on a case, it's just human nature. However, this is bad form and the friend/family member may not be fully appraised of the facts and will have their personal judgment compromised due to their personql relationship with the client. It is perfectly understandable for a solicitor to become angry when this happens and the solicitor/client relationship will be usually be damaged irretrievably. Mosti solicitors will drop clients like hot snots if they are seeking advices from someone else in parallel.

If what the OP says is true and there is no sect. 68 letter, then there is a good chance of fees being significantly reduced. I think any practitioner who doesn't thoroughly discuss fees with his client on day 1 is being very, very foolish in this economic climate. There is absolutely no point in a solicitor carrying out dozens or even hundreds of hours of work for a client, furnish a bill reflecting this work and have absolutely no prospect of getting paid if the client simply cannot afford the fees. Forgetting about sect. 68 and a solicitor's legal obligations to his client, a solicitor is failing as a businessman if he doesn't carry out due diligence on his client before work is undertaken.

Carawaystick

I think the OP's solicitor is behaving appallingly unprofessionally.
If you were to compare a Doctor or Engineer vs what some of the posters have claimed here, the solicitor is not up to the normal decent standards a consumer would expect from a professional.
A doctor when confronted with a second opinion would either back themselves or acquiesce with the other opinion.
An Engineer would have facts and reason to back up their opinion.

A competent engineer would be able to assess the pertinent facts left out by the casual consultation with the cousin/acquaintance and explain to the client why their chosen path was optimum.
A competent engineer would not throw the toys out of the pram.

The mere fact there's a regulation outlining how solicitors are to inform their clients the costs is telling.

Reloc8

Carawaystick wrote: »

An Engineer would have facts and reason to back up their opinion.

Not much point in using one in a family law case so.

Procrastastudy

Carawaystick wrote: »

A doctor when confronted with a second opinion would either back themselves or acquiesce with the other opinion.

I don't think you've met many senior consultants. The potential arrogance a solicitor may show pales in comparison.

Reloc8

Carawaystick wrote: »

I think the OP's solicitor is behaving appallingly unprofessionally.

You don't know enough to say that at all. You're assuming a high degree of reasonableness on the part of the OP, and a high degree of unreasonableness on the part of the solicitor, which speaks volumes (to borrow a phrase).

RainyDay

JBG2011 wrote: »

However, I suspect that in past cases involving sect. 68 disputes a copy of a purported sect. 68 letter will magically appear on the solicitor's file if the matter goes before the law society and then it becomes a case of who the Law Society believes. Obviously I've no proof of this, but I suspect it may have happened in the past.

I'm sure your suspicion is right. The danger for the solicitor who plays these games is that the client's audio recording of the meeting(s) with the solicitor where it becomes obvious that no costs were quoted up-front can also 'magically appear'. I know of one case a solicitor settled a small claims court case by refunding fees when confronted with a recording, though the disputed issue in that case was not about quoted fees.