Are the solicitors messing us around?

[Monja]

We have applied to our insurer for legal assistance in a contractual dispute, which was part of our household insurance cover. We got referred to a firm which refused to take our case due to conflict of interest and subsequently got referred to another firm, which does not have similar experience with contract law/housing/public law as the first one. They seem to deal mainly with accidents on 'no win no fee' basis and I suspect they are out of their depth with our case. They had our papers for over a month now have not even yet issued their opinion- every week they say they will 'respond shortly'. Is this reasonable? Should we go back to our insurer to appoint different lawyers?

[dan_1207]

Re: Are the solicitors messing us around?

It really depends on whether the claim really is that complicated. Even if it is, within the first week I'd get counsel's opinion and would go back to the client in under that time!

[Monja]

Re: Are the solicitors messing us around?

Thanks Dan- the claim is not that complicated IMHO as there was almost an identical case a few years ago, of which I've sent a copy to the solicitors. After looking up this firm online it seems they top the league of the complaints to the legal ombudsman. Many of these are for not progressing cases- which is what is happening to us!
My question is- what do I do about our insurers who are supposed to be providing us cover for legal disputes? Can I appoint my own lawyers and ask them to pay for it?

[stevemLS]

Re: Are the solicitors messing us around?

[QUOTE=Monja;567342My question is- what do I do about our insurers who are supposed to be providing us cover for legal disputes? Can I appoint my own lawyers and ask them to pay for it?[/QUOTE]

Unlikely but depends on the wording of your policy.

It is extraordinarily helpful of a client to provide precedents but there is an art to determining whether the decided case is, in fact, applicable to the case in hand and it is not always easy to make that call even for experienced legal professionals. Ultimately, it is a matter for the court as to whether a binding precedent is established by the cited case and judges are very capable of distinguishing cases if they don't like the outcome it would generate. I personally had a case decided by a District Judge recently in which she completely disregarded a very recent decision of the Court of Appeal on grounds which I (and the four counsel in the case) were entirely spurious (we are taking the DJ decision to the CoA).

So, not always easy to decide whether there is a binding precedent even in the face of what appear to be similar facts.

[Monja]

Re: Are the solicitors messing us around?

not always easy to decide whether there is a binding precedent even in the face of what appear to be similar facts.

The fact in this case are not just very similar, they are nearly identical- it's like we are re-enacting the same situation in some sort of Kafkaesque play.
So it's more than a precedent- the facts are the same. And the statute's wording was clear enough- it did not really need interpreting by the judge. The defendants were simply trying it on (with public money, so cost was no object).

I agree with Dan that if the solicitors' are out of their depth (which I suspect they are) they should have asked for a barrister's opinion.

The wording of the policy does not prohibit us from appointing our own solicitors- as long as it's with the insurers' approval.

Any advice on how to persuade our insurers to get their act together? We've been waiting for them to appoint lawyers since June. I have completely lost faith in the law firm they've assigned us to. Is this the point we should be starting complaining to the Financial Ombudsman?

[stevemLS]

Re: Are the solicitors messing us around?

The wording of the policy does not prohibit us from appointing our own solicitors- as long as it's with the insurers' approval.

Any advice on how to persuade our insurers to get their act together? We've been waiting for them to appoint lawyers since June. I have completely lost faith in the law firm they've assigned us to. Is this the point we should be starting complaining to the Financial Ombudsman?

The FO will not consider a complaint until you have been through the insurers complaints process.

What have you done to make known your disatisfaction direct to the solicitors. It sounds as though maybe you should be making complaint to the firms senior partner and/or your insurer.

[dan_1207]

Re: Are the solicitors messing us around?

The fact in this case are not just very similar, they are nearly identical- it's like we are re-enacting the same situation in some sort of Kafkaesque play.
So it's more than a precedent- the facts are the same. And the statute's wording was clear enough- it did not really need interpreting by the judge. The defendants were simply trying it on (with public money, so cost was no object).

I agree with Dan that if the solicitors' are out of their depth (which I suspect they are) they should have asked for a barrister's opinion.

The wording of the policy does not prohibit us from appointing our own solicitors- as long as it's with the insurers' approval.

Any advice on how to persuade our insurers to get their act together? We've been waiting for them to appoint lawyers since June. I have completely lost faith in the law firm they've assigned us to. Is this the point we should be starting complaining to the Financial Ombudsman?

Recorded delivery letter to MD of the insurer ought to do it. Just make sure you're following Ts & Cs for the appointment of your chosen lawyer and do not instruct that lawyer until you have written confirmation that they approve. Often when I'm appointed, I agree to do no (chargeable) activity until that letter arrives, otherwise you pay the costs yourself.