For irrelevant reasons I started work late today and watched part of a morning consumer programme with Gloria Hunniford, Angela Rippon and AN Other presenting it.
There was a bloke in it who complained about the solicitor acting as executor of his father's estate.
Before complaining he asked the Legal Complaints Service, the forerunner of the Solicitors' Regulation Authority (SRA), whether it would cost money to complain and was assured that it would not as that was the raison d'etre of their existence.
Well he duly complained and the solicitor refused to deal with him as he was not the client just a beneficiary of the client. On top of that he billed the bloke £17.5 k for dealing with the enquiries from the Legal Complaints Service. Matters escalated and the dispute eventually went to court and the judge found in favour of the solicitor as, in his role as executor, he (the solicitor) was also the client ie he was "soliciting" for himself! This decision left the complainant with costs of around £120K!
I realise these types of programme severely slant and skew facts to attract viewers but that said firstly what the hell is the point of the SRA if people are going to be bankrupted, despite being assured that there is no cost to complaining, if they do complain and secondly, given one, what accountability is there on the legal profession if the SRA (or forerunner) is a lying, toothless irrelevance?
Maybe the legal wallahs on here can cast some light.
0
Comments
The solicitor is simply acting as Executor which means he acts as principal, not an adviser, and in effect standing in place of the deceased. Beneficiaries don't have any rights, except to be paid by the Executor what they are entitled to. As long as the Executor has adhered to the terms of the Will he cannot have done anything wrong however much a beneficiary might disagree or complain, it's the Executor's decision and no one else's, that is the whole purpose.
His complaint must have been dismissed by the authorities and he didn't have to go to Court, he choose to. Going to Court is not making a "complaint". Son must have been told initially he didn't have a case, mainly because he didn't have any rights except to be paid what he was told he was getting from the Executor. Courts probably confirmed that was the case and Courts didn't have any power to interfere with what the solicitor had done.
His complaining created work for the Executor who, as a professional, was paid from the proceeds of the Estate for his time. Imagine that he caused the Estate to be depleted by £17k rather than "cost" the son £17k.
Making a complaint to the solicitor's body where they agree you have a case and resolve it for you would not cost anything. If you are told you don't have a case then your complaint has been dealt with. If he then goes to Court and appoints a lawyer and thinks he is still just complaining and its free he must be a numpty which is probably why his father didn't make him Executor.
You'll see that the SRA handbook bangs on about clients quite a lot: sra.org.uk/solicitors/handbook/code/part2/content.page
I can understand that the complainant is not the client but that does not answer the question as to why the Legal Complaints service apparently told him he could complain at no cost.
Surely it is they (or the SRA as they have now become) who should cough up the costs, rather than the individual or his father's estate, if they gave misleading, negligent or false advice which intimated that this man had a right of complaint when he palpably did not?
It's also at times like this I could've constructively chipped into this thread....
In the first instance, you should make your complaint clear to the solicitor and they are bound to respond fully within 8 weeks. After that, if you still feel that you have a complaint, you can report them to the SRA and make use of the Ombudsman's free service.
http://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems.page
http://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/consumer/
If you've been down these routes and they have both found against you, you are not out of pocket - although maybe you've had time and opportunity costs build up.
If you then decide to go to court, that's you ignoring the decision of the regulatory bodies and "taking a chance" that a judge will find in your favour. If you've been advised at that stage, then I would say you have a complaint against that solicitor, rather than the Executor! It's a little difficult to see a judge ruling for you if you've already been through the regulators and been found not to have a case.
Can't see why the SRA would pay out for you at that stage.
Be good if you could remember his name, might be able to find the court decision which would give the full background.
I remember because I thought he looked a bit like Graham Cowdrey!
What they may have said was that it wasn't a case in whcih they could uphold a complaint but that if he was unsatisfied, he could take his own legal advice.
I guess the problem is if you do not get a training contract quite soon after finishing all the studies, the law changes, most of the firms recruit 2 years in advance. It's probably more competitive now than it was back then with all the new graduates coming onto the market.
Be interesting to see if we have any lifers on here that have made it over the last few years, some success stories etc. I wouldn't want my moaning to be representative of the whole experience. I am pretty sure there are things I could've done better etc
The dilemma she would have now is that in the unlikely event of getting a training contract she'd almost certainly have to take a pay cut but has financial commitments to her existing salary.
I sympathise with cabbles and Len's daughter. I have advised a number of starry-eyed students NOT to try and go into law. My reasons are many and I won't clog up this thread by setting them out. Like in any job, there are good lawyers, bad lawyers and some who are absolutely shite.
It's also at times like this I could've constructively chipped into this thread....
I was in the same position at the last recession. Took me 8 years to get a training contract but now working for a decent firm in the city. Only advice I have is stick at it - do as much paralegal work as you can etc. Or give up and do something more interesting and useful instead!
Fair play for sticking at it. I was also looking to get into the paralegal route. When I finished my LPC I just didn't get any joy. I'm sure I probably didn't finesse or work on what would've made a difference but just didn't really get a look in. Then you're in the position where you need to take a job. And then as Len points out you have a salary that fits your outgoings, it was 2,3,4,5 and now 8 years since I did my LPC. You've got rent, bills and I probably couldn't afford to go to paralegal.
I wish I could say I've something more interesting to do:)
(A website naming allegedly "dodgy" solicitors was shutndown by legal action by The Law Society). Of course websites like this may be part of our right to freedom of speech but they reflect only one poster's experience which may be very biased, bitter or skewed. Like Charlton Life I guess.