Solicitors costs now in debt.

[janeG]

Hi,

I'm going through a bitter divorce and the Solicitor I was recommended to frankly was not what I was happy with.

I felt I went too far down the line to change solicitors and financially it has put me in a bad position.

When I first started I had to pay £12,000 as a deposit. I was informed that approx it would cost about £15,000 excluding disbursements court fees lawyers etc up to Final hearing.

AT FDR It was not settled and I received another letter requesting a further £10,000. I asked for a break down of charges so far and was given the below. (this excludes the barrasters charges). This is how I received it in a letter,

Word done on documents 35 hours @ £300 per hour
Letters, emails, incoming outgoing 105 x £30
Telephone calls in/out 17 x £30
Client attendances 7 hours @ £300 per hour
Court attendences 8 @ £300 per hour


Total £18,625 + Vat
+ Disembursements fees court etc :- Total £22,600

Solicitor informed me his fees would not exceed £5000 more however far it went from the FDR.

It was not settled at FDR and went to two final hearings. I received a settlement of £25,000 plus property

Solicitor then Deducted a further £8000 from this a settlement giving a total of £30,600 without any warning of additional costs.

I am now in debt.

My question is do these costs seem reasonable for a divorce. I have no problems with the Barrister and legal court fees.

I do not feel my solicitor has represented me well and even at court where he charged £2400 for he was not even in the court but sat outside. Barrister did all the work.

I am still going through the court order and don;t want to rock the boat. But feel more costs are to come.

Any help appreciated on this

Jane

[EXC]

Re: Solicitors costs now in debt.

My question is do these costs seem reasonable for a divorce.

There are too many variables in contested divorces to say what a reasonable figure might be.

Your issue would seem to be more about the lack of warnings about the potential costs and assurances that the costs would be less than they were.

If you've not already done so you should raise the issue formally with them by making a complaint and if it's not resolved to your satisfaction you can then go to the Legal Ombudsman, who looks at complaints about solicitors ''giving any information about their costs, or not updating the information as time goes on''.

http://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/?fa...s-poor-service

[janeG]

Re: Solicitors costs now in debt.

Many thanks for your advice. I will seek this through the Ombudsman. I am a bit worried to rock the boat currently as the court order is still outstanding and he is supposed to be dealing with.

Regards
Jane

[Amethyst]

Re: Solicitors costs now in debt.

Solicitor informed me his fees would not exceed £5000 more however far it went from the FDR.

Did he do that in writing ?

I do not feel my solicitor has represented me well and even at court where he charged £2400 for he was not even in the court but sat outside. Barrister did all the work.

Was that your barrister or the other sides ?

[Openlaw15]

Re: Solicitors costs now in debt.

Many thanks for your advice. I will seek this through the Ombudsman. I am a bit worried to rock the boat currently as the court order is still outstanding and he is supposed to be dealing with.

Regards
Jane

An ombudsman has the power of a high court, so you do not have to contact ombudsman right now. It is not a good idea to get the Ombudsman involved right now as he is still helping you. it's probably not worth changing solicitors now either. If you think the solicitor's services were unreasonable it's something the Ombudsman may look at. I believe the complaint will go through the solicitor's firm initially then you make a complaint to the Legal Ombudsman. I would certainly ask the solicitor why his fees are different to the ones approximated though. Contact the law society too they may be able to help you with reasonable costs.

[nemesis45]

Re: Solicitors costs now in debt.

Note on the Legal Ombudsman Service:
The Legal Ombudsman Service deals with all public complaints across the entire legal sector,
( not just solicitors).

The emphasis of the Ombudsman Is On Speed & Informality, with the goal of resolving complaints
by agreement rather than a quasi - judicial process.
I an agreed resolution is not possible - one of the Ombudsmen will make a decision. But that
decision will not be based on Legal Precedent, or Regulation, but on a judgement based on what
is Fair & Reasonable in the circumstances as required by the Legal Services Act 1970.

Such a decision does not take into consideration.

*A decision a court might make.

* The relevant Code of Conduct.

* Good Practice.

nem

[des8]

Re: Solicitors costs now in debt.

An ombudsman has the power of a high court,.

Legal Ombudsman scheme set up under part 6 of The Legal Services Act 2007, which doesn't appear to bestow High Court powers on the LeO.
Financial Ombudsman certainly doesn't have High Court Powers
LGO has High Court powers in relation to the taking of evidence, as does the Public Services Ombudsman in Wales

As an amateur I would appreciate clarification of your statement

[nemesis45]

Re: Solicitors costs now in debt.

I can't see any justification for that statement whatsoever, post #6 is what the official site says about LeO's remit.

nem

[Openlaw15]

Re: Solicitors costs now in debt.

Legal Ombudsman scheme set up under part 6 of The Legal Services Act 2007, which doesn't appear to bestow High Court powers on the LeO.
Financial Ombudsman certainly doesn't have High Court Powers
LGO has High Court powers in relation to the taking of evidence, as does the Public Services Ombudsman in Wales

As an amateur I would appreciate clarification of your statement

"The duty is to make a decision as to the extent to which a complaint is justified. The degree and manner of supervision to be exercised by the court will vary from institution to institution and from statutory scheme to statutory scheme:"
R v Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration Ex Parte Dyer [1994] 1 WLR 621. Hence an Ombudsman essentially has the power of a High Court if it were to choose to exercise those powers, however.

[des8]

Re: Solicitors costs now in debt.

Sorry, but my reading of the judgement is that the High Court agreed the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration was entitled in the exercise of his discretion to limit the scope of his investigations.
How do you jump from that to a blanket statement that all ombudsmen have the power of the high court?
The various ombudsmen have been set up under different acts and with different remits.

Apologies to OP for going off topic, but it seems to some of us that some of the advice being given is of doubtful value.

.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Solicitors costs now in debt.

Sorry, but my reading of the judgement is that the High Court agreed the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration was entitled in the exercise of his discretion to limit the scope of his investigations.
How do you jump from that to a blanket statement that all ombudsmen have the power of the high court?
The various ombudsmen have been set up under different acts and with different remits.

Apologies to OP for going off topic, but it seems to some of us that some of the advice being given is of doubtful value.

.

a
On the facts that may well be, but the scope of Ombudsman is broad and no institution should be treated the same and Ombudsman statutory powers will necessarily and rightfully vary from statutory scheme to statutory scheme, which is the material point. In this way it mirrors tort (ie act or omission) in that there are certain hypothetical standards to ensure that the correct duty of care standards apply. In a case the ratio is the important part - not the facts of the case. If you actually knew how to read a case for legal application it may help instead of making irrelevant remarks, then having the audacity to say any advice I were to give is doubtful. This is called a disproportionate inference, and in any event you do not know how to read cases clearly. Let's just talk about the weather...it's saves having to make you think a little! The idea is the Ombudsman is a remedy to avoid legal actions per se and the Ombudsman whilst not being a high court has the power to make recommendations that a high court necessarily could.

[des8]

Re: Solicitors costs now in debt.

well forgive me for having the temerity to ask

[mariefab]

Re: Solicitors costs now in debt.

I think it would be better, in post #6, to say...

Such a decision will take into account, but is not bound by:

Instead of...
Such a decision does not take into consideration.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Solicitors costs now in debt.

Note on the Legal Ombudsman Service:
The Legal Ombudsman Service deals with all public complaints across the entire legal sector,
( not just solicitors).

The emphasis of the Ombudsman Is On Speed & Informality, with the goal of resolving complaints
by agreement rather than a quasi - judicial process.
I an agreed resolution is not possible - one of the Ombudsmen will make a decision. But that
decision will not be based on Legal Precedent, or Regulation, but on a judgement based on what
is Fair & Reasonable in the circumstances as required by the Legal Services Act 1970.

Such a decision does not take into consideration.

*A decision a court might make.

* The relevant Code of Conduct.

* Good Practice.

nem

Breach of duty is defined as 'unreasonable in the circumstances'.. so the wording is clearly based on tort. 'Act or omission' also pertains to tort law.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Solicitors costs now in debt.

I think it would be better, in post #6, to say...

Such a decision will take into account, but is not bound by:

Instead of...
Such a decision does not take into consideration.

I was viewing Ombudsman in the public law sense it that it is informally a source of the UK's constitution to represent general citizens' needs who probably cannot afford a legal remedy fornally and this is supposed to be the aim of an Ombudsman.