Correspondence with opposing solicitor

NipNip

Can the content of your correspondence with the opposing solicitor be read out in court, should a matter come to court?

Miaireland

It can not be if it is marked Without Prejudice. If it is not marked with this I think it can. I am open to correction though.

NipNip

Woops!

Pat Mustard

NipNip wrote: »

Can the content of your correspondence with the opposing solicitor be read out in court, should a matter come to court?

Short answer: yes.

There is an exception for correspondence marked 'without prejudice', where such correspondence relates to settlement discussions, but not otherwise, generally.

Go away and find a solicitor to look after this for you. You are only fooling yourself if you think that they are closed. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen out the country somewhere, but I don't know of a single solicitor's office that closes for August.

NipNip

Oh I have found one. But I'm too bold. So I respond myself in some cases. Actually, I respond myself full stop.

NipNip

It kinda started off with the solicitor telling me in 'layman's terms' what jointly and severally meant.
So I replied to tell him that in layman's terms, he was barking up the wrong tree.
So he replied telling me that they could tell 'the wood from the trees'
So I replied that I would keep with the 'tree' theme and that his client brought the word 'plank' to mind.
Now I'm afraid I'm going to be screwed in a court by a very serious judge.
I also told him the law is a bit of a donkey.

Seriously - I need an edit function on anything I send out. Like, seriously.

Bepolite

NipNip wrote: »

It kinda started off with the solicitor telling me in 'layman's terms' what jointly and severally meant.
So I replied to tell him that in layman's terms, he was barking up the wrong tree.
So he replied telling me that they could tell 'the wood from the trees'
So I replied that I would keep with the 'tree' theme and that his client brought the word 'plank' to mind.
Now I'm afraid I'm going to be screwed in a court by a very serious judge.
I also told him the law is a bit of a donkey.

Seriously - I need an edit function on anything I send out. Like, seriously.

That's one of the functions of hiring a legal professional. Why don't you let them handle it? If you hired a builder to do work for you and kept pissing in their cement people might think you're a tad stupid.

NipNip

You see I didn't hire him. I was looking for a solicitor and coincidentally the only one who returned my call was a guy (now a solicitor apparently) who had brought me to his debs. So, an old friend so to speak.
So, I told him I couldn't afford to pay him. So he 'advised me' (why do I never listen to advice????), to forward on correspondence to him and he would advise.
Fine you'd think. Except the other smart assed solicitor pissed me off each time, so I replied to him before I gave the solicitor a chance to advise me or act on my behalf.

NipNip

Ach - it doesn't matter really at this stage!

NipNip

I'm kinda screwed! I'm my own worst enemy!

Reebrock

Keep EVERYTHING to Email so there is a record. never make the mistake, EVER, of getting on the phone.

NipNip

Reebrock wrote: »

Keep EVERYTHING to Email so there is a record. never make the mistake, EVER, of getting on the phone.

The unfortunate thing is that it is ALL THERE, in writing, on email. Which is what worries me lol! God, I'm way too hot-headed.

Reebrock

Yes it can be frustrating.

The most important thing is always KEEP YOUR COOL.

If you're angry, walk it off. A smarter head always prevails.

NipNip

Reebrock wrote: »

Yes it can be frustrating.

The most important thing is always KEEP YOUR COOL.

If you're angry, walk it off. A smarter head always prevails.

If I was smart I wouldn't be corresponding with solicitors in the first place!

Reebrock

No doing that is fine fella. It's keeping it cordial.

Pat Mustard

NipNip wrote: »

I'm kinda screwed!

Not necessarily.

Just hand it over to your solicitor and stop communicating with the other guy's solicitor.

Your solicitor will worry about it so you won't have to.

That's all that you need to do.

NipNip

The Mustard wrote: »

Not necessarily.

Just hand it over to your solicitor and stop communicating with the other guy's solicitor.

Your solicitor will worry about it so you won't have to.

That's all that you need to do.

Small town and I don't think my solicitor now wishes to have any association with me. I should ask him I guess.

Reebrock

Oh NipNip, you have a solicitor? Sorry I assumed you were handling your own affairs. In that case, leave the matter to your hired professional.

NipNip

Reebrock wrote: »

Oh NipNip, you have a solicitor? Sorry I assumed you were handling your own affairs. In that case, leave the matter to your hired professional.

No, you assumed correctly!

NipNip

I've asked him to take the case on. For free (since the case is pursuing me for money I already don't have!). We'll see how we go.

NipNip

The Mustard wrote: »

Short answer: yes.

There is an exception for correspondence marked 'without prejudice', where such correspondence relates to settlement discussions, but not otherwise, generally.

Go away and find a solicitor to look after this for you. You are only fooling yourself if you think that they are closed. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen out the country somewhere, but I don't know of a single solicitor's office that closes for August.

So, if not relating to settlement discussions, 'without prejudice' can't be used yeah?

Pro Hoc Vice

NipNip wrote: »

So, if not relating to settlement discussions, 'without prejudice' can't be used yeah?

How many threads do you have on this issue.

NipNip

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

How many threads do you have on this issue.

Perhaps you can do a count better than I could?

littlemac1980

NipNip wrote: »

I've asked him to take the case on. For free (since the case is pursuing me for money I already don't have!). We'll see how we go.

So you're situation involves someone hiring a solicitor to chase you for money that you say you can't pay, and you're looking for a solicitor to deal with the matter for you for free.

In addition, you insist on corresponding directly with the solicitor for the alleged "creditor", despite the fact that you may have actually procured a solicitor to act for you, and it appears you're quite willing to engage in legal correspondence which involves concepts and terminology that you don't fully understand.

I would have thought there would be lines of solicitors in waiting to take on your case...

Maximilian

ok enough of this.