Solicitor declining to act for client after receiving signed instructions.

An Ri rua · 30-08-2018 07:05PM #1

Hello all,

Can a solicitor arbitrarily decline to act for a client once the client has signed instructions and submitted all required paperwork? Is there any onus on a solicitor to complete a transaction or can they just decline to act on a straightforward conveyancing transaction?

Is there a Code of Conduct that covers this shoddy unprofessional treatment of my family member?

Thank you.

Miaireland · 30-08-2018 07:25PM

On what basic did they refuse? Is there a possible conflict of interest that they only became aware of?

An Ri rua · 30-08-2018 07:56PM

No basis. Said they'd suddenly become too busy, for the foreseeable future, and she could collect her paperwork at reception.
I had queried a few issues, with her consent, as I was present at the introductory briefing meeting. It was her preference.
Having looked briefly through the relevant professional conduct guide from the Law Society (a Good Professional Guide for Solicitors), I believe that the firm owe her a duty of care as an elderly, vulnerable person and believe that I should remind them of their fiduciary duties by quoting same.
Would ye? Or what tack would you take with a solicitor who suddenly downed tools for no valid reason and caused distress to a senior citizen and widow?

Lmklad · 30-08-2018 09:04PM

If no money has been handed over I’d just find another solicitor.

An Ri rua · 30-08-2018 09:21PM

Lmklad wrote: »

If no money has been handed over I’d just find another solicitor.

Thanks, I think she will once we chase down an answer on this.
We're livid about it. She is stressed and embarrassed and has been shoddily treated. I've read that guide and, apart from my asking a series of questions in better understanding the issue and various options, all I can imagine is that she feels I may be acting nefariously?? I have to say that I am incensed and, for all the good it will do, will make a strong written case to the Law Society. I queried her fee structure and one of two other aspects. Hardly a crime?
To email a 3rd party that she will no longer be acting for her is also a breach of that code of conduct. I then had to inform this pensioner. That's extremely arrogant and shoddy treatment.

nuac · 30-08-2018 09:22PM

Mod
Leaving open for general discussion
Personally I believe a solicitor can decline instructions in any matter.
There are well over 2000 solicitors' firms

An Ri rua · 30-08-2018 09:28PM

The discussion will be interesting.

According to that guide, they should not decline without defined reasons.

There may be 2000 solicitor firms but only one has been loyally used by this pensioner since 1968. And precious time wasted this summer. The code of conduct is surely there to promote a professional standard of practice. If it's not adhered to, what would the point be, exactly, of sampling the other 1999 firms?
I am sure that she, and all other family members and friends, will find an alternative to this arrogant shower; however if they have acted unprofessionally and there is a means to sanction them, it shall be done.

Homer · 30-08-2018 09:30PM

Just my opinion, but you say it was a simple conveyancy job and from what I’ve read of your posts, I wouldn’t want to deal with you either. You may not like or agree with my opinion but hey :cool:

An Ri rua · 30-08-2018 09:34PM

Homer wrote: »

Just my opinion, but you say it was a simple conveyancy job and from what I’ve read of your posts, I wouldn’t want to deal with you either. You may not like or agree with my opinion but hey :cool:

Why, what about my posts here in this thread is offputting? Querying prices??

cursai · 30-08-2018 09:36PM

A simple disagreement over how to proceed? Too many cooks??? Idle hands etc? Curtain twitching comes too mind also.
These aren't legal terms and should not be misconstrued as legal advice.
Don't worry. I won't charge. So you won't get offended.

An Ri rua · 30-08-2018 09:44PM

cursai wrote: »

A simple disagreement over how to proceed? Too many cooks??? Idle hands etc? Curtain twitching comes too mind also.
These aren't legal terms and should not be misconstrued as legal advice.
Don't worry. I won't charge. So you won't get offended.

That's a bizarre arrogant response? I am trusted by an elder relative to help them. If I didn't, they'd get fleeced by all sorts of providers and that includes professionals sometimes. Too many cooks?? So you leave a vulnerable relative to the whims of whomever or you assist when asked?
If I could get responses from decent, honest solicitors, that would be great. Not attacks on my character or on the character of my elderly relative.

I asked a valid question on this thread and should not have to put up with these snide remarks from people who arrogantly assume that they are smarter than me.
'If' you are in the position to charge anyone for ANY advice, God help them as that was pure drivel. I expect logic here.

DesperateDan · 30-08-2018 09:51PM

Grabbing my popcorn hang on

scuby · 30-08-2018 09:58PM

An Ri rua wrote:

I asked a valid question on this thread and should not have to put up with these snide remarks from people who arrogantly assume that they are smarter than me.

You're on a public forum, you will get all sort of replies ! Some you will like, others not so much.

An Ri rua · 30-08-2018 10:14PM

scuby wrote: »

An Ri rua wrote:

I asked a valid question on this thread and should not have to put up with these snide remarks from people who arrogantly assume that they are smarter than me.

You're on a public forum, you will get all sort of replies ! Some you will like, others not so much.

I wholeheartedly agree, and I welcome robust debate, provided that those replies are pertinent to the opening post and the question posited. Not like one of two of the posts here. Unhelpful, thuggish and partisan.

An Ri rua · 30-08-2018 10:16PM

nuac wrote: »

Mod
Leaving open for general discussion
Personally I believe a solicitor can decline instructions in any matter.
There are well over 2000 solicitors' firms

Please Mod, leave this open for now. I want valid answers to this consumer issue.
Thank you

gctest50 · 30-08-2018 10:17PM

An Ri rua wrote: »

Thanks, I think she will once we chase down an answer on this.
We're livid about it. She is stressed and embarrassed and has been shoddily treated. I've read that guide and, apart from my asking a series of questions in better understanding the issue and various options, all I can imagine is that she feels I may be acting nefariously?? I have to say that I am incensed and, for all the good it will do, will make a strong written case to the Law Society. I queried her fee structure and one of two other aspects. Hardly a crime?
To email a 3rd party that she will no longer be acting for her is also a breach of that code of conduct. I then had to inform this pensioner. That's extremely arrogant and shoddy treatment.

An Ri rua wrote: »

To email a 3rd party ....

Who is this 3rd party ?

hullaballoo · 30-08-2018 10:20PM

A solicitor who has not yet acted in a matter can decline so to do without breaching any duty, never mind a fiduciary one. A fiduciary relationship is one that is very narrowly construed and does not apply in every case where a solicitor acts, or as in this case, refuses to act within their rights.

Raising queries on fees etc at the very outset in a straightforward looking case, the likelihood is it set off alarm bells for the solicitor who has experienced, as any professional practitioner has, the client who doesn't want to pay for any level of professional service. These are also the clients who create the most amount of work. Then they query why there were so many hours done on their straightforward case and refuse to pay, usually accompanied with threats to complain the professional to the relevant professional regulator.

If your relative had a good relationship over the course of 50 years with the solicitor and the solicitor has only changed their mind about your relative, after 50 years, once you got involved, maybe that's where you need to look rather than trying to formulate an unstateable complaint to the Law Society?

An Ri rua · 30-08-2018 10:23PM

gctest50 wrote:

Who is this 3rd party ?

Anyone who isn't the person who signed the solicitor instruction. Who do you think it might pertain to?

An Ri rua · 30-08-2018 10:27PM

hullaballoo wrote:

If your relative had a good relationship over the course of 50 years with the solicitor and the solicitor has only changed their mind about your relative, after 50 years, once you got involved, maybe that's where you need to look rather than trying to formulate an unstateable complaint to the Law Society?

They have a long loyal relationship. Like many of the last generation, they were often dictated to rather than advised and on a number of occasions were unhappy with the service supplied.
I appreciate your reply, I understand your concerns re nonpayment but when details are skimmed over, clients get nervous too. My relative is the client and always pays her bills. I have been involved before. So that's a non-issue. But I respect the levelheaded nature of your comprehensive reply.
Thank you.

gctest50 · 30-08-2018 10:29PM

An Ri rua wrote: »

Anyone who isn't the person who signed the solicitor instruction. Who do you think it might pertain to?

An Ri rua wrote: »

Who do you think it might pertain to?

I don't know, that's why i'm asking :

Who received the email ? You ?

30-08-2018 10:33PM

An Ri rua wrote:

Thanks, I think she will once we chase down an answer on this. We're livid about it. She is stressed and embarrassed and has been shoddily treated. I've read that guide and, apart from my asking a series of questions in better understanding the issue and various options, all I can imagine is that she feels I may be acting nefariously?? I have to say that I am incensed and, for all the good it will do, will make a strong written case to the Law Society. I queried her fee structure and one of two other aspects. Hardly a crime? To email a 3rd party that she will no longer be acting for her is also a breach of that code of conduct. I then had to inform this pensioner. That's extremely arrogant and shoddy treatment.

I'm not in the legal profession but in my own business there are times when someone asks questions in such a way that I forsee (in my mind anyway) that they might be difficult to work with. I've turned down clients that I believe will be too much trouble or cause me too much stress in dealing with them.

I'm not saying that this is the case for you but I do love my right to refuse. I can't imagine why a solicitor can't refuse too

An Ri rua · 30-08-2018 10:41PM

Sleeper12 wrote:

I'm not saying that this is the case for you but I do love my right to refuse. I can't imagine why a solicitor can't refuse too

Agreed. We all can understand that.
The paperwork sent out had some serious errors. Which I queried. Like my name on the invoice? Come on people, that's far from right. Its sloppy.
But it comes back to my query re a signed instruction under that code of conduct.

glic71rods46t0 · 30-08-2018 10:43PM

gctest50 wrote: »

An Ri rua wrote: »

Anyone who isn't the person who signed the solicitor instruction. Who do you think it might pertain to?

An Ri rua wrote: »

Who do you think it might pertain to?

I don't know, that's why i'm asking :

Who received the email ? You ?

OP received email. Solicitor presumably had OP's email address as OP sent queries to solicitor on behalf of, and with the consent of the relative. OP wishes to now regard himself as a 3rd party (rather than the relatives representative) and claims that the solicitor breached a code of conduct - rather disingenuous when you add it all up.

the_syco · 30-08-2018 10:55PM

An Ri rua wrote: »

They have a long loyal relationship. Like many of the last generation, they were often dictated to rather than advised and on a number of occasions were unhappy with the service supplied.

So after many years, you decided to buck the their professional relationship and you are now trying to save face with your relative by having the solicitor take the case?

Sometimes when you're in a hole, you shouldn't keep digging.

An Ri rua · 30-08-2018 10:59PM

w28apzcb3veoyh wrote:

Who received the email ? You ?

OP received email. Solicitor presumably had OP's email address as OP sent queries to solicitor on behalf of, and with the consent of the relative. OP wishes to now regard himself as a 3rd party (rather than the relatives representative) and claims that the solicitor breached a code of conduct - rather disingenuous when you add it all up.[/quote]

Half right. I'm not the relative's representative in any legal manner. She is compos mentis thanks. And was representing herself only last week. When she delivered her signed instruction. I followed up by email with information and was clear that she needed to confirm details by phone or in person with the client. Very much a third party.
So being accurate is not disingenuous. Its being clear and accurate.

gctest50 · 30-08-2018 11:00PM

w28apzcb3veoyh wrote: »

OP received email. Solicitor presumably had OP's email address as OP sent queries to solicitor on behalf of, and with the consent of the relative. OP wishes to now regard himself as a 3rd party (rather than the relatives representative) and claims that the solicitor breached a code of conduct - rather disingenuous when you add it all up.

It's all seems a bit odd - one minute it's all we this and that and then it's the old " i'm just a third party"

An Ri rua wrote: »

We're livid about it .........

I queried her fee structure and one of two other aspects...........

An Ri rua wrote: »

.........

I am trusted by an elder relative to help them.

An Ri rua wrote: »

I had queried a few issues, with her consent, as I was present at the introductory briefing meeting. It was her preference.

gctest50 · 30-08-2018 11:05PM

An Ri rua wrote: »

Half right. I'm not the relative's representative in any legal manner. She is compos mentis thanks.

........

but yet you say :

An Ri rua wrote: »

............

I am trusted by an elder relative to help them. If I didn't, they'd get fleeced by all sorts of providers and that includes professionals sometimes.

An Ri rua wrote: »

And was representing herself only last week. When she delivered her signed instruction.

So ....... that one time, she delivered her signed instruction on her own

but she needs help at all other times so as not to be fleeced " by all sorts of providers and that includes professionals "

An Ri rua wrote: »

............

I am trusted by an elder relative to help them. If I didn't, they'd get fleeced by all sorts of providers and that includes professionals sometimes.

I would have genuine concerns about all this

.

An Ri rua · 30-08-2018 11:05PM

the_syco wrote:

So after many years, you decided to buck the their professional relationship and you are now trying to save face with your relative by having the solicitor take the case?

the_syco wrote:

Sometimes when you're in a hole, you shouldn't keep digging.

I don't need to save face. The relative was very clear on what was sent and is appalled by the arrogant way the firm has dealt with her valid questions. She doesn't use email. Is that so difficult to fathom?
Some of you are a rancid, cold bunch indeed. Some of you are polite and even minded.

Mod: An Rí nua - Your language is offensive. No more of that pls

glic71rods46t0 · 30-08-2018 11:34PM

It's becoming very clear why the solicitor decided not this on. Thankfully a booming economy means you don't have to take on work for "difficult" people

An Ri rua · 30-08-2018 11:38PM

An Ri rua wrote: »

the_syco wrote:

So after many years, you decided to buck the their professional relationship and you are now trying to save face with your relative by having the solicitor take the case?

the_syco wrote:

Sometimes when you're in a hole, you shouldn't keep digging.

I don't need to save face. The relative was very clear on what was sent and is appalled by the arrogant way the firm has dealt with her valid questions. She doesn't use email. Is that so difficult to fathom?
Some of you are a rancid, cold bunch indeed. Some of you are polite and even minded.

Mod: Your language is offensive. No more of that pls

I apologise Mod but that post was a blatant misrepresentation of what I wrote. There are a number of posters here who seem more intent on sideshows than answering the original question asked. I don't understand that at all. Fuzzy thinking at best or disingenuous at worst.
I would have thought that the question asked was fair game for a robust consumwe v solicitor discussion as both sides have valuable input. But, instead, there's a lot of lowbrow, illogical sideshow arguments being created and aspersions cast at my character.
It appears that this thread has outlived its usefulness as the Boards armchair warriors are living the closet intellectual dream once more.

An Ri rua · 30-08-2018 11:42PM

w28apzcb3veoyh wrote: »

It's becoming very clear why the solicitor decided not this on. Thankfully a booming economy means you don't have to take on work for "difficult" people

And in the downturn, people choose solicitors who are consumer friendly and answer basic questions asked of them and don't just roll over or genuflect in front of them as your tone implies.
Quality solicitors, and all quality suppliers, lose business to cowboys during booms. The business cycle will teach you decency.

Solicitor declining to act for client after receiving signed instructions.

Comments