How to deal with a lawyer, advice please?

Dont call me Shirley

Before I start I'm looking for the layman's perspective, I don't want to post in the legal forum because I think i'll just get the lawyers perspective but mods feel free to move if you see fit.

I'm in a bit of a tricky legal situation at present. I wanted to take a court case against somebody. I went to a lawyer and explained my case. I told them I had no money (which I don't). They said your case is very strong, pay us when its over and if at any time we think you're case is weak, it's money up front. (I think this is a fairly standard agreement for lawyers).

I said grand. Anyway the situation drags on for a year or so and my lawyer says we better get the advice of a senior counsel. Off we trot and the senior counsel says your case isn't so strong there's a legal technicality the other side can exploit. They also said there's a good chance the other side will want to settle to avoid bad publicity. I said i was willing to go ahead so long as the lawyer was willing to take the case without money up front.

Grand. Turns out the lawyer went ahead and took the case anyway and is now looking for 18k costs upfront. Plus, I might now have to pay the other sides costs if i want to back out. I told the lawyer i didn't give you instruction to take the case, the lawyer says i did and it looks like the senior counsel is backing their story.

What should i do? I went to a free legal advice center and they said offer to pay for a consultation and the senior counsel's opinion, tell them to piss off after this and hope the other side don't come after you for their costs. While I want to be fair, I'm loathe to pay anyone who I know to be lying.

So here's my question, do I stand a chance of legally avoiding paying if it's my word against the lawyer and a senior counsel. Would anyone believe me against them? Alternatively, what if i just outright refuse to pay, what happens then?

admiralofthefleet

Shirley you cant be serious?

Pottler

Lube up, Shirley. What you need now is a good lawyer.

Chucken

Why didnt you go to legal aid first??

COYVB

Always get everything in writing

Dont call me Shirley

Chucken wrote: »

Why didnt you go to legal aid first??

It's a free legal advice centre i went to their different from legal aid.

Legal aid wouldn't cover the particular case I wanted to take even though ironically i might be covered if my lawyers try now to sue me!

Lenin Skynard

I think you should make a cup of tea. That'll be 18k please.

MagicMarker

Sucks to be you.

Dont call me Shirley

Lenin Skynard wrote: »

I think you should make a cup of tea. That'll be 18k please.

Hmmm sounds familiar, are you my lawyer?

cml387

You heard the words "senior council" and did not associate it with the sound "ker-ching!"?

doomed

Forget the rights and wrongs. Tell them you havent a bean and the only reason the case has proceeded is because of that. They may not be happy but they are well used to writing money off when its more hassle than its worth. You are not worth suing.

Dont call me Shirley

cml387 wrote: »

You heard the words "senior council" and did not associate it with the sound "ker-ching!"?

Actually the senior counsel is only a fairly small % of the overall fee and they did at least tell me my case is weak. I'd have no problem paying them (eventually), only their backing my lawyer on the other side of it and lying!

Dont call me Shirley

doomed wrote: »

Forget the rights and wrongs. Tell them you havent a bean and the only reason the case has proceeded is because of that. They may not be happy but they are well used to writing money off when its more hassle than its worth. You are not worth suing.

Yes I don't have a penny. The legal advice crowd said i should try to pay the senior counsel because (in so many words) those ****ers are in court every day and will sue you with the slightest provocation.

I don't want to pay them knowing their lying. What i'd like to do (As a last resort) is wait for them to sue me, pay them a small amount, stop, wait for them to sue me again, pay a small amount, stop and so on.

I believe this is what people often do to avoid debt. My worry is that they will keep charging me legal fees every time and the sum owed will increase and increase, does it work like this?

Chucken

Right, enough of this legalese..tell us what the case is about :cool:

Trend Setter in Training

doomed wrote: »

Forget the rights and wrongs. Tell them you havent a bean and the only reason the case has proceeded is because of that. They may not be happy but they are well used to writing money off when its more hassle than its worth. You are not worth suing.

I would agree with the above and play dumb on the fee, cross your fingers and hope they don't come after you.

Don't see a happy ending for you TBH.

gbee

Go to court, have your day.

Even if you lose, appeal, be prepared to go to jail, jail holds no fear, but they think it does, it's only money and the justice is as likely to tell them to get stuffed.

Lenin Skynard

Dont call me Shirley wrote: »

Hmmm sounds familiar, are you my lawyer?

I surely am.

xLexie

That's what happens when all you can see is dolla signs flashing before you. Hate the "lets sue everyone" culture, too bad that it's turned back on you

squod

This is a classic case of trying to fight fire with fire. Y'know what beats fire? Two broken legs.

cml387

Is your lawyer called Vinnie perchance?

I'm with Chucken on this one. Need more details.
If we get details (preferably juicy details with photos) we might have some idea of your chances because I have to be honest, at the minute you are sitting in Screwed Corne.r

Dont call me Shirley

Trend Setter in Training wrote: »

I would agree with the above and play dumb on the fee, cross your fingers and hope they don't come after you.

Don't see a happy ending for you TBH.

Ya I'm not sure i do either but gotta keep trying.

I'm just worried that they'll try to sue me because basically their profession is quiet and they've nothing else much better to be doing.

What I'm hoping goes in my favor is that it looks bad for them to sue me. Their basically saying they took a major case on behalf of someone unemployed without any agreement on payment, which I think doesn't make sense, no matter how many of them are backing it up.

Plus they sat on my case for a year without getting the proper opinion, again doesn't look good.

Plus, they didn't provide me with the letter on how much they were charging until six months in. They're supposed to tell you straight up.

They're supposedly a pretty big reputable firm, so does any of this stuff work in my favour?

galwayrush

Make sure to transfer any assets you may have to wife/ family member you trust and go bankrupt in the UK, looks like you're ****ed otherwise unless you win the case and the losing party pays up.

Doc Ruby

Help, master, help! here's a fish hangs in the net,
like a poor man's right in the law.

(Pericles, 2.1.153), Fisherman

Dont call me Shirley

xLexie wrote: »

That's what happens when all you can see is dolla signs flashing before you. Hate the "lets sue everyone" culture, too bad that it's turned back on you

Where are you getting this from. I don't want to go into the details of my case but the senior counsels opinion was that they would hide behind a technicality, not that i hadn't been wronged.

Pottler

Head to Iceland, jump into one of the freezers thrash about and start eating your own shyte. Have a friend video it. Act natural but disturbed. Then, when they haul your a55 into their chamber of buggery(ie court), plead insanity and show the video. No judge in the land would disbelieve you.

You now have a plan, thank me later.




I'm no lawyer, so don't quote me on any of this shyte. especially the eating it bit...

cml387

"Battledore and shuttlecock's a very good game, when you ain't the shuttlecock and two lawyers the battledores, in which case it gets too excitin' to be pleasant."

Charles Dickens, the Pickwick Papers.

gbee

Dont call me Shirley wrote: »

Plus they sat on my case for a year without getting the proper opinion, again doesn't look good.

Caveat: All cases are different: In my case the judge took a VERY dim view of this and ordered them to do the decent thing [ie settle].

opti0nal

Solicitors are obliged to tell you how much they cost per hour and to provide details of work to be done and how much it will cost. Also, they must give a breakdown of work done for you.

I'm surprised they'd run up a bill for 18k and exposed you to liability risk without getting your explicit permission.

Ask for full details in writing.

The Law Society can investigate if there is any improper behaviour. Have a look at their website.

Trend Setter in Training

Dont call me Shirley wrote: »

Ya I'm not sure i do either but gotta keep trying.

I'm just worried that they'll try to sue me because basically their profession is quiet and they've nothing else much better to be doing.

What I'm hoping goes in my favor is that it looks bad for them to sue me. Their basically saying they took a major case on behalf of someone unemployed without any agreement on payment, which I think doesn't make sense, no matter how many of them are backing it up.

Plus they sat on my case for a year without getting the proper opinion, again doesn't look good.

Plus, they didn't provide me with the letter on how much they were charging until six months in. They're supposed to tell you straight up.

They're supposedly a pretty big reputable firm, so does any of this stuff work in my favour?

Bottom line is that if you don't have any cash / assets then they could throw the book at you and not recover any money. Along with wasting time and billable hours that could have been spent elsewhere they would end up at them same result.

You may have been treated unfairly but unless you are willing to get money and fight them or find a reputable (ha), decent (ha) lawyer to fight your case for a no win no fee basis you are caught between a rock and a hard place.

Good Luck!

Dont call me Shirley

galwayrush wrote: »

Make sure to transfer any assets you may have to wife/ family member you trust and go bankrupt in the UK, looks like you're ****ed otherwise unless you win the case and the losing party pays up.

Well as of now i've no assets. My concern is that it'll go against future earnings. I'm hoping to start a new career soon which should be reasonable well paid.

I can't go ahead and take the case because i just don't have the money to do so. I no longer trust my lawyer and i'd have to pay up with them to take the case to another lawyer. I think the reason my lawyer did what they did was to try to maximize their chances of getting paid, i'd have to come up with something to continue the case plus the likelihood the other side would settle.

tempura

opti0nal wrote: »

Solicitors are obliged to tell you how much they cost per hour and to provide details of work to be done and how much it will cost. Also, they must give a breakdown of work done for you.

I'm surprised they'd run up a bill for 18k and exposed you to liability risk without getting your explicit permission.

Ask for full details in writing.

The Law Society can investigate if there is any improper behaviour. Have a look at their website.

The above is correct.

More importantly, did you sign anything, and I mean anything, and if so, did you read it, small print and all. A good lawyer should give you the breakdown of everything and explain all paperwork in full before you give any permission.

Dont call me Shirley

opti0nal wrote: »

Solicitors are obliged to tell you how much they cost per hour and to provide details of work to be done and how much it will cost. Also, they must give a breakdown of work done for you.

I'm surprised they'd run up a bill for 18k and exposed you to liability risk without getting your explicit permission.

Ask for full details in writing.

The Law Society can investigate if there is any improper behaviour. Have a look at their website.

They gave me the letter of the cost per hour at six months in, at which case they said i owed about 8k. They said they couldn't calculate the final cost because the case was too complicated. Bear in mind that at this point I was assured it was a very strong case.

There saying they have my explicit permission to go ahead with the case because there all backing the story that I clearly said go ahead. Should it be in writing?

Procrastastudy

Dont call me Shirley wrote: »

Before I start I'm looking for the layman's perspective, I don't want to post in the legal forum because I think i'll just get the lawyers perspective but mods feel free to move if you see fit.

You need a lawyers perspective. If a plumber f*ucks up installing a new bathroom you don't call a dentist to sort it out you call another plumber.

Dont call me Shirley wrote: »

What should i do? I went to a free legal advice center and they said offer to pay for a consultation and the senior counsel's opinion, tell them to piss off after this and hope the other side don't come after you for their costs. While I want to be fair, I'm loathe to pay anyone who I know to be lying.

FLAC is staffed by legal professionals - it would be wise to follow their advice. I'm very surprised a complaint to the Law Society wasn't mentioned.

Dont call me Shirley wrote: »

So here's my question, do I stand a chance of legally avoiding paying if it's my word against the lawyer and a senior counsel. Would anyone believe me against them? Alternatively, what if i just outright refuse to pay, what happens then?

Doesn't matter who they believe if you've no assets. However bear in mind if you own a house they could get a judgement mortgage against it.

Dont call me Shirley

Trend Setter in Training wrote: »

Bottom line is that if you don't have any cash / assets then they could throw the book at you and not recover any money. Along with wasting time and billable hours that could have been spent elsewhere they would end up at them same result.

Well i certainly don't have any cash or assets. My concern is that if their not busy (I don't think many lawyers are) it costs them nothing to sue me. So they might say this guy could be earning in a year or two maybe we'll get something out of him then?

Is this likely? The legal advice crowd said that senior counsels will sue you on a whim as they're in court every day? Is this true?

Also will I be liable for any 'costs' of them suing me to get payment should they win?

Procrastastudy

Dont call me Shirley wrote: »

Well i certainly don't have any cash or assets. My concern is that if their not busy (I don't think many lawyers are) it costs them nothing to sue me. So they might say this guy could be earning in a year or two maybe we'll get something out of him then?

Is this likely? The legal advice crowd said that senior counsels will sue you on a whim as they're in court every day? Is this true?

Also will I be liable for any 'costs' of them suing me to get payment should they win?

Get proper legal advice, but it is far from free to sue you. That said you're only looking at the circuit court for 18K so it won;t break the bank either. Barristers are pretty used to not being paid - I doubt they sue every single person. Probably depends how big a twat you were

Senior counsel would be busy enough.

Dont call me Shirley

Procrastastudy wrote: »

FLAC is staffed by legal professionals - it would be wise to follow their advice. I'm very surprised a complaint to the Law Society wasn't mentioned.

I probably should follow their advice and pay a small amount. It just sticks it my gut paying to somebody who i know i lying. I'm trying to work out the likely consequences to me if i refuse to pay.

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Doesn't matter who they believe if you've no assets. However bear in mind if you own a house they could get a judgement mortgage against it.

I don't own a house. I've no assets at present, i hope to be back earning in six months time, I reckon my wages will be 25-30k starting, which should increase fairly well over a few years. Can they get a chunk of this?

cram1971

Six months in and they give you and engagement letter that is a joke. I would face up to them and tell them if they want any chance of seeing their 18 k they need to see your case through or else you will find someone who will.

Don't be afraid to stand up to them.

Procrastastudy

Dont call me Shirley wrote: »

I probably should follow their advice and pay a small amount. It just sticks it my gut paying to somebody who i know i lying. I'm trying to work out the likely consequences to me if i refuse to pay.



I don't own a house. I've no assets at present, i hope to be back earning in six months time, I reckon my wages will be 25-30k starting, which should increase fairly well over a few years. Can they get a chunk of this?

I'm not a lawyer so I don't know. I'd get a second opinion from a solicitor if you can, in case anything the first solicitor did can amount to negligent misstatement.

No legal aid and a technicality - this wouldnt be a defamation case would it?

ceegee

http://www.uninspiringquotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/lionel-hutz-business-card.jpg

Dont call me Shirley

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I'm not a lawyer so I don't know. I'd get a second opinion from a solicitor if you can, in case anything the first solicitor did can amount to negligent misstatement.

No legal aid and a technicality - this wouldnt be a defamation case would it?

Hey i thought you weren't a lawyer!

I don't want to discuss anything that might identify the case cause for all i know my lawyer could be reading this.

What's a negligent misstatement?

I don't think they put anything in writing that's not above board and after that it's my word against theirs again i'm afraid.

Procrastastudy

Negligent misstatement is where something is said to you that should not have been. I've no idea of the technicalities of it but telling you its a strong case and then a SC telling the solicitor it is not seems negligent to me. That said I presume you told all this to the person at FLAC and they gave you advice.

I'd get in contact with the Law Society to see if there has been any breach. That will pretty much kill your case with the current solicitor though, I would have thought.

Again you really, ironically, need legal advice.

Prodigious

Break his legs and tell him you'll pay after.

Dont call me Shirley

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Negligent misstatement is where something is said to you that should not have been. I've no idea of the technicalities of it but telling you its a strong case and then a SC telling the solicitor it is not seems negligent to me. That said I presume you told all this to the person at FLAC and they gave you advice.

I'd get in contact with the Law Society to see if there has been any breach. That will pretty much kill your case with the current solicitor though, I would have thought.

Again you really, ironically, need legal advice.

I'll go back to the Free Legal Advice crowd they seemed pretty decent, I can't afford a lawyer!

As regards the Law Society i've no great faith they do anything of consequence. Plus, the Legal Advice crowd were kinda suggesting I hold back to see how the situation plays out. I think they were making out out it might might only aggravate them to sue me.

Procrastastudy

Dont call me Shirley wrote: »

I'll go back to the Free Legal Advice crowd they seemed pretty decent, I can't afford a lawyer!

As regards the Law Society i've no great faith they do anything of consequence. Plus, the Legal Advice crowd were kinda suggesting I hold back to see how the situation plays out. I think they were making out out it might might only aggravate them to sue me.

Generally people within the legal profession are quite decent. If someone is taking the piss the Law Society will take action. For no other reason than solicitors are getting pissed off with the insurance costs going up year on year because of all the charlatans.

Dont call me Shirley

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Generally people within the legal profession are quite decent. If someone is taking the piss the Law Society will take action. For no other reason than solicitors are getting pissed off with the insurance costs going up year on year because of all the charlatans.

I've read up on them and I just don't see what meaningful action they take. Plus the only proof i have of wrongdoing is not providing the fees letter until six months in, other than that it's my word against theirs.

I suppose I could try to show how they sat on my case for the most of a year but again this is difficult to prove. They'll claim it was complicated, things to be dealt with before SC advice etc, etc.

I'd be more in favor of breaking legs tbh but we'll see how it plays out!

What I'm really trying to ascertain is the expense factor. If they sue me how much costs am I liable for and would this be the same any other time they have to sue me?

Trhiggy83

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Negligent misstatement is where something is said to you that should not have been. I've no idea of the technicalities of it but telling you its a strong case and then a SC telling the solicitor it is not seems negligent to me. That said I presume you told all this to the person at FLAC and they gave you advice.

I'd get in contact with the Law Society to see if there has been any breach. That will pretty much kill your case with the current solicitor though, I would have thought.

Again you really, ironically, need legal advice.

Very hard to prove a negligent misstatement against a solicitor as they always only express their opinion to you according to the facts you present to them. A good solicitor wont tell you how to proceed, they will give you the options you have and the possible outcomes available. They advise you but they wont tell you, at the end of the day it will be your decision how to proceed not theirs.A negligent misstatement is when a representation of fact is carelessly made and the other person relies on that advice.

To be honest i dont think you should think of going down this road. I would quiz the solicitor about his duties thoughas he does not seem to have been very transparent. They need to furnish you with an estimate of costs prior to the works taking place as far as i know. Check out the lawlibrary.ie for more details

franktheplank

AFAIK the only good lawyer is a dead lawyer :cool:

Dont call me Shirley

Trhiggy83 wrote: »

To be honest i dont think you should think of going down this road. I would quiz the solicitor about his duties thoughas he does not seem to have been very transparent. They need to furnish you with an estimate of costs prior to the works taking place as far as i know. Check out the lawlibrary.ie for more details

We'll they said they couldn't give an estimate of costs because it was too complicated. While I can claim they sat on the case and unnecessarily increased costs (and I think i'd win on this part) that only gets me half way there.

My big issue is that they took action without my instruction, we had a very clear (admittedly verbal) agreement that a case would only go ahead if it didn't require money up front. They're now lying and saying I gave them the go ahead regardless.

I wouldn't mind paying for any work done that i would have had to pay another genuine solicitor for. I appreciate that I was gonna walk into a solicitor's office somewhere and seek an opinion. I'm just loathe to pay for anything when I know they are lying.

I'm trying to work out if taking this hard line is more likely to get me sued than just paying a small (fair) amount and telling them to get stuffed on the rest. And if so exactly what consequences will being sued have?

Can I still avoid paying even if i'm sued, trickle a bit here and there and make them take me to court over and over. Is this a good long term strategy or am I just increasing the cost I have to pay every time.

Or what if I just change address, how likely are they to track me down?

Trhiggy83

Dont call me Shirley wrote: »

We'll they said they couldn't give an estimate of costs because it was too complicated. While I can claim they sat on the case and unnecessarily increased costs (and I think i'd win on this part) that only gets me half way there.

My big issue is that they took action without my instruction, we had a very clear (admittedly verbal) agreement that a case would only go ahead if it didn't require money up front. They're now lying and saying I gave them the go ahead regardless.

I wouldn't mind paying for any work done that i would have had to pay another genuine solicitor for. I appreciate that I was gonna walk into a solicitor's office somewhere and seek an opinion. I'm just loathe to pay for anything when I know they are lying.

I'm trying to work out if taking this hard line is more likely to get me sued than just paying a small (fair) amount and telling them to get stuffed on the rest. And if so exactly what consequences will being sued have?

Can I still avoid paying even if i'm sued, trickle a bit here and there and make them take me to court over and over. Is this a good long term strategy or am I just increasing the cost I have to pay every time.

Or what if I just change address, how likely are they to track me down?

Ask the solicitor for a detailed breakdown of the costs they incurred which should include time, rates, vat, etc.
A solicitor usually looks for money up front as they dont want the hassle of chasing you for the money later. If you had an agreement in place and it wasnt in writing then the solicitor is as liable to loss as you are in my opinion. A verbal contract between two parties can be legally binding but this is hard to enforce if there is a direct contradiction between two parties. The solicitor has left themselves as open as yourself in my opinion.

Can you explain how the senior council is of the opinion that these fees were agreed. Did you all meet ?

Dont call me Shirley

Trhiggy83 wrote: »

Can you explain how the senior council is of the opinion that these fees were agreed. Did you all meet ?

Yup we all met. I'm not sure exactly what the senior council will say on it I'm gonna look for clarification but so far they're saying they acted on my instruction without going into the details.

It was quite clear at the meeting that any instruction was dependent on an arrangement being agreed on for fees. I pretty sure the senior council will fully back the solicitor but we'll see.

If the senior council doesn't back and the solicitor and tells the truth, I've no problem paying them when I can for the work they've done.

The free legal advice crowd were of the opinion that it wouldn't matter so much that i didn't have a written agreement. A solicitor would be allowed take action on my verbal instruction and I can then be liable for the other sides costs on this basis. So it's coming down to my word versus their's.

Trhiggy83

Dont call me Shirley wrote: »

Yup we all met. I'm not sure exactly what the senior council will say on it I'm gonna look for clarification but so far they're saying they acted on my instruction without going into the details.

It was quite clear at the meeting that any instruction was dependent on an arrangement being agreed on for fees. I pretty sure the senior council will fully back the solicitor but we'll see.

If the senior council doesn't back and the solicitor and tells the truth, I've no problem paying them when I can for the work they've done.

The free legal advice crowd were of the opinion that it wouldn't matter so much that i didn't have a written agreement. A solicitor would be allowed take action on my verbal instruction and I can then be liable for the other sides costs on this basis. So it's coming down to my word versus their's.

If i was in your position i would request a breakdown of the costs anyway to see what you are being charged for. Secondly if you are of the opinion that the fees were not agreed and this was clearly stated, you have a right to argue your case to the solicitor. Dont be afraid to tell the solicitor exactly what you are thinking, they will walk all over you otherwise.

If you dont agree with what they are saying, you need to stand up and fight your corner. Dont let them dictate the situation. If you think they are wrong , let them know very clearly that you disagree with what they have done. It would probably be best to start emailing now instead of phoning as you want a papertrail and exact details on their response in softcopy.