impersonating a lawyer

beaufoy

People will probably remember that I have been threatened with a defamation claim. Well here is an update:
The law firm has been verified as genuine
The lawyer who wrote threatening to sue me for defamation on behalf of her client was/is not listed on the Law firm list of lawyers employed. Now this does not mean a lot she might not of worked there for a long time, and lists go out of date sometimes
I wrote to a senior member of staff at the firm pointing out that the lawyer who works for his firm had made mistakes, and he should pass the case of suing me onto a more experienced lawyer
I received an automated reply telling me he was/is on holiday, and asking me to contact another lawyer at his practice, or his secretary....said secretary has the same name as the lawyer who sent me a threatening letter

Really Interested

beaufoy wrote: »

People will probably remember that I have been threatened with a defamation claim. Well here is an update:
The law firm has been verified as genuine
The lawyer who wrote threatening to sue me for defamation on behalf of her client was/is not listed on the Law firm list of lawyers employed. Now this does not mean a lot she might not of worked there for a long time, and lists go out of date sometimes
I wrote to a senior member of staff at the firm pointing out that the lawyer who works for his firm had made mistakes, and he should pass the case of suing me onto a more experienced lawyer
I received an automated reply telling me he was/is on holiday, and asking me to contact another lawyer at his practice, or his secretary....said secretary has the same name as the lawyer who sent me a threatening letter

This post gave me a good laugh on a Thursday morning. You would be best advised going to your own solicitor to defend any possible claim, there is much in Defamation law that a good solicitor could give advise on so that you may deal with this issue with little or no costs depending on the facts.

By the way as defendant in proceedings you have zero right to tell the Plaintiff or his solicitors how to carry on their business. In solicitor firms while a qualified solicitor deals with the matter the case can have unqualified persons deal with certain aspects.

Remember any letter you send can and may end up in front of a Judge in the hearing of your case, think of that every time you write a letter, and remember letters can be taken out of context.

Peregrinus

Really interested is correct. How a firm of lawyers organises its affairs as regards signing letters, etc, is not a concern of yours. You have no right to enquire into it and, more to the point, there is no mileage for you in doing so; if proceedings against you are pursued these matters will not affect them at all.

You are at risk of getting caught up in irrelevancies and trivialities, and missing the things that matter. The time and energy you put into wondering about who should be signing letters at the plaintiff's lawyer firm is time and energy that you are not putting into things that matter, like the claim against you and your defence against it.

Go and see a lawyer and for the love of God listen to what he says. Be guided by him as to what should matter to you and do not engage in cleverality about who is signing whose letters. That cannot end well for you.

Mr. Incognito

Yes.

I recall this

You made a complaint.

They wrote to you thretening defammatory statements

You wrote threatening to sue for defamation. (in the eyes of the Court)

Now you are enquiring into their capacity.

Let me be as clear as possible. Get a lawyer. You dont know what you are doing.

CeilingFly

oh boy oh boy

2 choices

1
Write and apologise profusely that you did not intend to defame anyone and apologise if they took it that way. (you are not admitting anythign) State that you will not mention the subject again.
Get a solictor to advise on the apology.


2
Have a couple of years of wait for a court case. It will be no skin off a solictors back to take a defamation claim. Remember they have NO IDEPENDENT BODY you cna complain to, so they are really a law onto themselves and some abuse that position.
Assuming they take the case (absolutley no problem for them to do so) you will ahve to put ina defense via a barrister and solicitor. Your costs for even that part will be €2k+
If it actaully goes to court and you lose - €10k between costs and claim.


Yep - some solicitors think they are above everyone and will abuse the system and screw you whatever way they can. Compain about their work and their answer is a defamation action.

Until we have a legal ombudsman, a small percentage of solicitors will get away with this bullsh1t and you will pay.

Samuel T. Cogley

You can complain to the Law Society which are not slow in smacking solicitors where required.

CeilingFly

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

You can complain to the Law Society which are not slow in smacking solicitors where required.

are you having a laugh?? Seriously???

They will only do something is its totally 100% against their rules and the complaint must come through another solictor if the solicitor you are complaining to was nto engaged by you.

beaufoy

Hang on you are telling me that a lawyer can get his secretary to do his job for him, and whilst doing so pretend she is a practicing lawyer. Then when the both of them are caught they will not suffer any consequences.
Whilst you are writing this you are at the same time suggesting that the law profession has integrity and I should trust them(a secretary?) to do a better job than I could possibly do....
NB. If the secretary had written that she was writing on behalf of mr..... who is a qualified lawyer then I could see they would have a loop hole to get away from a charge of fraud/deception but as things stand an unqualified commercial window cleaner would not be allowed to impersonate a qualified window cleaner so why should lawyers get away with such a crime

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Wildcard7

Peregrinus wrote: »

You are at risk of getting caught up in irrelevancies and trivialities, and missing the things that matter.

beaufoy wrote: »

Hang on you are telling me that a lawyer can get his secretary to do his job for him, and whilst doing so pretend she is a practicing lawyer. Then when the both of them are caught they will not suffer any consequences.

It appears Peregrinus was on to something there.

beaufoy wrote: »

as things stand an unqualified commercial window cleaner would not be allowed to impersonate a qualified window cleaner so why should lawyers get away with such a crime

Not that it changes anything about your situation, but I'm pretty sure an unqualified commercial window cleaner can send you a letter stating that their company will clean your windows next Friday, and that you'll be charged the full rate (because his buddy, the qualified window cleaner does the job) for the job.

beaufoy

Wildcard7 wrote: »

It appears Peregrinus was on to something there.



Not that it changes anything about your situation, but I'm pretty sure an unqualified commercial window cleaner can send you a letter stating that their company will clean your windows next Friday, and that you'll be charged the full rate (because his buddy, the qualified window cleaner does the job) for the job.

You are changing jobs here if the unqualified lawyer sent me an estimate of costs on behalf of the qualified lawyer that would be acceptable, it is pretending to be a lawyer and doing the main job of a lawyer which is unaceptable

beaufoy

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Yes.

I recall this

You made a complaint.

They wrote to you thretening defammatory statements

You wrote threatening to sue for defamation. (in the eyes of the Court)

Now you are enquiring into their capacity.

Let me be as clear as possible. Get a lawyer. You dont know what you are doing.

I am a qualified (more than the lawyer) english teacher, but either your english is bad or mine is because I do not understand

They wrote to you thretening defammatory statements

joeguevara

Did the person hold them out as a lawyer with the appropriate designation or did they pp the signature.

beaufoy

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Yes.

I recall this

You made a complaint.

They wrote to you thretening defammatory statements

You wrote threatening to sue for defamation. (in the eyes of the Court)

Now you are enquiring into their capacity.

Let me be as clear as possible. Get a lawyer. You dont know what you are doing.

I am a qualified (more than the lawyer) english teacher, but either your english is bad or mine is because I do not understand

They wrote to you thretening defammatory statements


Now you are enquiring into their capacity

ps I know there is privilege to make statements inside a court

Grolschevik

CeilingFly wrote: »

the complaint must come through another solictor if the solicitor you are complaining to was nto engaged by you.

Not correct. https://www.lawsociety.ie/Public/Complaints-against-solicitors/Steps-to-take/

When considering making a complaint against a solicitor, please follow the steps outlined here.

How to make a complaint

Please follow the steps below:

Write to the solicitor explaining your dissatisfaction and allow a reasonable time for the solicitor to reply. Send a copy of this letter to the Senior Partner of the firm in question (if there is one).

If you do not get satisfaction, consider carefully whether the Law Society can investigate your complaint. See our information booklet Complaints about Solicitors.

Complete our complaint form and send it to the Complaints and Client Relations Section, George's Court, George's Lane, Dublin 7. We cannot open a complaint file until we have a signed complaint and a postal address.

Set out, in a concise manner, the basis of your complaint and the name and address of your solicitor. If you have more than one complaint, list them in a 1, 2, 3 etc. format for ease of investigation, with copies of relevant documentation (no originals). New complaints will not be entertained once the investigation has started. If you are complaining about more than one solicitor, please make separate complaints.

Please note that complaints are dealt with in writing and all relevant correspondence in relation to a complaint will be furnished to the solicitor.

Find out more about the Complaints procedure.

See also https://www.lawsociety.ie/Public/Complaints-against-solicitors/Disciplinary-Tribunal/

To make an application to the Tribunal, a form of application and a sworn affidavit must be completed. If you are considering a direct application to the Tribunal, you should first contact the Clerk of the Disciplinary Tribunal, The Disciplinary Tribunal, The Friary, Bow Street, Dublin 7 to obtain the appropriate information leaflet and application forms.

For more information, visit the Disciplinary Tribunal website.

http://www.distrib.ie/about-the-tribunal/

beaufoy

The point that I would need to employ a solicitor in order to make a complaint seems a little strange. If I have problems with a window cleaner I would not have to employ another window cleaner to make a complaint except maybe as an expert witness to say the windows were not clean.
In theory at lease I could make the complaint without employing another solicitor. Then when the law society refuses to accept said complaint from a non lawyer. I could go to the high court and ask for judicial review of their rejection
In the eyes of justice I would win, but we all know law/lawyers/judges have a very tenable relationship with justice

CeilingFly

beaufoy wrote: »

The point that I would need to employ a solicitor in order to make a complaint seems a little strange. If I have problems with a window cleaner I would not have to employ another window cleaner to make a complaint except maybe as an expert witness to say the windows were not clean.
In theory at lease I could make the complaint without employing another solicitor. Then when the law society refuses to accept said complaint from a non lawyer. I could go to the high court and ask for judicial review of their rejection
In the eyes of justice I would win, but we all know law/lawyers/judges have a very tenable relationship with justice

You go your route and it will be very very very costly.

If you can't pay those costs, a judment could be obtained against you and you will never ever get credit from a bank until that is paid. No car loan, no mortgage, no credit card. But I see from other posts that you have property - slam dunk for the otherside. Judgement mortgage on costs and they can force a sale if needed.

You are fodder for the vultures - you will not win.

I'd absolutely love to say you would - it would give me great pleasure for such an outcome. But the legal system is rigged against the lay person and until they have an legal ombudman, the lay person will always lose in a fight against the small number of unscrupulous solicitors

Grolschevik

beaufoy wrote: »

The point that I would need to employ a solicitor in order to make a complaint seems a little strange.

You don't.

beaufoy wrote: »

Then when the law society refuses to accept said complaint from a non lawyer.

They don't.

See post 15.

Really Interested

beaufoy wrote: »

The point that I would need to employ a solicitor in order to make a complaint seems a little strange. If I have problems with a window cleaner I would not have to employ another window cleaner to make a complaint except maybe as an expert witness to say the windows were not clean.
In theory at lease I could make the complaint without employing another solicitor. Then when the law society refuses to accept said complaint from a non lawyer. I could go to the high court and ask for judicial review of their rejection
In the eyes of justice I would win, but we all know law/lawyers/judges have a very tenable relationship with justice

Quick questions 1 did the person who wrote and signed the letter clearly state they are a solicitor. 2 if the person did have you confirmed with the Law Society that the person is in fact not a solicitor.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Really Interested

Fred Swanson wrote: »

It is very rare for a solicitor to sign expect in the name of the firm.

I agree.

TheBoyConor

Op you really are on a hiding to nothing with this.

As said, the secretary is probably signing on behalf of the firm as a whole.
You would only have any legitimate complaint if the later falsely stated that the signatory was a solicitor when then were not.

If you go down this route all you will do is dig yourself further into the hole you are in and generate even more ill feeling towards you from the other side.

Also the possibility a judge could see it as frivilous & vexacious and throw it out. That would also be considered wasting court time which is taken very seriously.

For the love of god and for you own good, just let this go.

billybonkers

beaufoy wrote: »

People will probably remember that I have been threatened with a defamation claim. Well here is an update:
The law firm has been verified as genuine
The lawyer who wrote threatening to sue me for defamation on behalf of her client was/is not listed on the Law firm list of lawyers employed. Now this does not mean a lot she might not of worked there for a long time, and lists go out of date sometimes
I wrote to a senior member of staff at the firm pointing out that the lawyer who works for his firm had made mistakes, and he should pass the case of suing me onto a more experienced lawyer
I received an automated reply telling me he was/is on holiday, and asking me to contact another lawyer at his practice, or his secretary....said secretary has the same name as the lawyer who sent me a threatening letter

Pulling the old Harvey Specter

Peregrinus

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But, if it does happen, it's not a problem.

Nor it is a problem if someone who is not a solicitor signs a letter on behalf of a solicitors firm (as long as they are authorised to do so).

Beaufoy, stop obsessing about this. It doesn't matter. Really, it doesn't. It's a complete irrelevancy. It is not what you need to be thinking about.

beaufoy

You are correct she did not sign. However she did write in the first person singular "I am instructed that my clients" if she had written in the first person plural then maybe she could defend her actions as being on behalf of her firm ie "we are instructed that our clients"

Peregrinus

So what? How is this going to be of any help to you in any way at all?

joeguevara

This is ridiculous. You have now stated that she did not sign. What is referred to is the client of the solicitors firm. There is no impersonation there and if you continue with this, there is an arguable case that the firm, as well as certain individuals could add to the defamation case saying that you have stated that there has been impersonation etc.

Get on with your life. Stop trying to see things that aren't there. Stop digging a hole for yourself with arguments about first person singular versus plural. Life is too short!

Really Interested

beaufoy wrote: »

You are correct she did not sign. However she did write in the first person singular "I am instructed that my clients" if she had written in the first person plural then maybe she could defend her actions as being on behalf of her firm ie "we are instructed that our clients"

So she typed up the letter! On what basis are you saying she is not acting on instructions of a solicitor or for that matter that she is not on the roll?

Peregrinus

Really Interested wrote: »

So she typed up the letter! On what basis are you saying she is not acting on instructions of a solicitor or for that matter that she is not on the roll?

On what basis is he even wondering about this? It is absolutely not his issue. It cannot affect him in the smallest degree.

Beaufoy, you have a letter on the letterhead of a firm of solicitors. You can treat it as coming from the firm of solicitors. Questions like who prepared it, who authorised it, who signed it - none of them make any difference at all to you, and none of them are any of your business. Nothing you have posted to this thread suggests that there was anything at all untoward about the way the firm handles this correspondence and, even if there were, that's a matter that might concern their client, but it should not concern you. At best, the time you spend on this is completely wasted; at worst, it distracts you from things you should be spending time on.

amcalester

OP you're suffering from a type of Target Fixation, it rarely ends well.

beaufoy

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Op you really are on a hiding to nothing with this.

As said, the secretary is probably signing on behalf of the firm as a whole.
You would only have any legitimate complaint if the later falsely stated that the signatory was a solicitor when then were not.

If you go down this route all you will do is dig yourself further into the hole you are in and generate even more ill feeling towards you from the other side.

Also the possibility a judge could see it as frivilous & vexacious and throw it out. That would also be considered wasting court time which is taken very seriously.



For the love of god and for you own good, just let this go.

It is true that a judge might throw it out, after all judges have thrown out cases which are more serious than the case I am suggesting eg rape/human trafficking/torture. However, a judge in england did not throw out a case which was finally lost causing the state to pay more than 20,000 in costs. Said case was the theft of one banana. Even one of England's most respected judges (Caufield) threw out an application which asked for Jeffery Archers back to be submitted as evidence as to the condition of the skin on said back, and instead he suggested an independent witness should testify as to the condition of archers back. Caufield suggested the independent witness should be Archer's wife. Anyway why am I telling you after all the Irish have suffered more than most due to strange decisions by judges

Mod warning
That imho is a rant rather than legal discussion
No more of that pls

TheBoyConor

Beaufoy.
Listen to the advice on thread....

You are already in enough trouble over this defamation business that you have going on against you. Don't make matters worse for yourself by making accusations of impersonation.

Seriously OP, you need a serious dose of cop the fúck on. And if you are so obtuse and pig-headed that you cannot even see that or accept the unanimous advice given here, then to be honest, you deserve to be absolutely steamrolled in court.

beaufoy

joeguevara wrote: »

This is ridiculous. You have now stated that she did not sign. What is referred to is the client of the solicitors firm. There is no impersonation there and if you continue with this, there is an arguable case that the firm, as well as certain individuals could add to the defamation case saying that you have stated that there has been impersonation etc.

Get on with your life. Stop trying to see things that aren't there. Stop digging a hole for yourself with arguments about first person singular versus plural. Life is too short!

life is also too short for you to spend time protecting people you know to be guilty

beaufoy

Peregrinus wrote: »

So what? How is this going to be of any help to you in any way at all?

do you understand the word evidence, or are you a Solicitor

endacl

This is like watching a slo-mo vid of a car crash. There's nothing you can do to stop it, and you know you could just look away, but....

Really Interested

beaufoy wrote: »

life is also too short for you to spend time protecting people you know to be guilty

You are showing yourself to be the worst type of litigant the one who really wanted to be a lawyer! If you do go to any good college or as you have a primary degree apply to Law Society or Kings inns and actully do it!

Really Interested

beaufoy wrote: »

do you understand the word evidence, or are you a Solicitor

Well I know a few solicitors who don’t sometimes get the concept of evidence, lol.

CeilingFly

beaufoy wrote: »

You are correct she did not sign. However she did write in the first person singular "I am instructed that my clients" if she had written in the first person plural then maybe she could defend her actions as being on behalf of her firm ie "we are instructed that our clients"

When I was in another business I wrote letters to people. The word "I" was used. It was signed by my secretary or someone else who signed on behalf of the firm - but they were still my words.

Ther's no legal impediment to someone else signing a letter once its done with permission.

You really really need to walk away form this or it will cost you an awful lot of money.

Sometimes you have to accept defeat - even if you think you are right.

joeguevara

beaufoy wrote: »

life is also too short for you to spend time protecting people you know to be guilty

You are the only person who is guilty of trying to invent a case that is not there!

Find something else to obsess over.

TheBoyConor

Beaufoy
You're clearly not going to heed our advice so will you let us know the court date for this spectacle that you are planning on playing out.

I'll take a days leave and buy a big tub of popcorn to sit in the public gallery to watch you being pasted by your opponents.

beaufoy

I believe this topic will soon come to an end, so I would like to thank you all for your input, and I will leave you all so you can go back to your desks

runawaybishop

beaufoy wrote: »

It is true that a judge might throw it out, after all judges have thrown out cases which are more serious than the case I am suggesting eg rape/human trafficking/torture. However, a judge in england did not throw out a case which was finally lost causing the state to pay more than 20,000 in costs. Said case was the theft of one banana. Even one of England's most respected judges (Caufield) threw out an application which asked for Jeffery Archers back to be submitted as evidence as to the condition of the skin on said back, and instead he suggested an independent witness should testify as to the condition of archers back. Caufield suggested the independent witness should be Archer's wife. Anyway why am I telling you after all the Irish have suffered more than most due to strange decisions by judges

Indeed, but was he wearing his hat?

endacl

beaufoy wrote: »

I believe this topic will soon come to an end, so I would like to thank you all for your input, and I will leave you all so you can go back to your desks

But we have more input!

runawaybishop wrote: »

Indeed, but was he wearing his hat?